Arizona Backs Off Its Speed Camera Program 513
crimeandpunishment writes to inform us that Arizona is putting the brakes to a controversial and contentious speed camera program. The cameras have been used along highways in the Phoenix area and in vans throughout the state. While the cameras are used throughout the country, Arizona's program was the widest use of the technology, and the decision to drop it is a setback for those who argue that the cameras slow speeders, reduce accidents, and free up police for more serious matters. "The camera program was instituted by Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, now the Homeland Security secretary. Cameras were introduced in September 2008 and were added until all 76 were up and running by January 2009. Lawmakers considered repeal proposals within months, but set the issue aside and appealed for calmer debate when a passing motorist fatally shot a camera-van operator doing paperwork in his marked vehicle in April 2009."
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not the UK yet, we don't need this crap here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good? (Score:2)
I don't get it. You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple. This ain't a pretty please with sugar on top think of the children type thing. One thing I hear a lot from people being stopped is "don't you have better things to do than to stop me speeding?" With a camera in place, these police officers need not be keeping the roads safe when any normal person can regulate speed perfectly well themselves.
Gatsometers have limitations true, but an average speed camera check (pictures taken at say 1 mile int
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
On the highways, away from residential areas, speeding laws are generally solely structured to bring in more income.
In NY, there are areas where highways have 50mph speed limits... or even 45mph... despite a wide, straight (or nearly so) well-paved road.
Ultimately, laws are meant to be the projection of the will of the people, moderated by the Constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court... and we don't want the speed cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish :)
Laws are there for a reason. Doesn't mean it's a good reason, and doesn't mean that I can't oppose a law, and aim to have it repealed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You "can't"? Do you seriously not understand that bad laws only get changed when people of courage and principle stand up (or in Rosa Park's case, sit down) and challenge them?
The repeal of prohibition, universal suffrage, race rights, women's rights in the workplace and inside their own uterus, and a silly little thing called the American republic, all of these were won, not granted.
At this point, I'm not sure who's trolling who, so I'll
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple.
When you start following speed limits and making complete stops when you're on duty in a patrol car, I'll start to think that you really believe that law is important. Until then, you're just a meter maid in my book, and I'll treat you as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently we do, it people are crazy enough to shoot a man in a traffic camera van.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.
Ummm, no the VIN is what helped catch the guy in New York. And his own stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.
Ummm, no the VIN is what helped catch the guy in New York. And his own stupidity.
Nope. We still haven't found the guy they caught on camera, and the guy we caught was an Engineer with a graduate degree that had no idea of how to build a bomb or avoid detection at even the most basic level.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
the guy we caught was an Engineer with a graduate degree that had no idea of how to build a bomb or avoid detection at even the most basic level. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Okay so a guy with no real idea how to build a bomb builds a bomb that doesn't work. He has no idea how to avoid detection and is quickly identified and captured because he did not destroy the VIN number of the vehicle he used. I'm not sure I understand where you're seeing a disconnect that would lead you to think something is amiss with the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that the vehicle itself led them on a somewhat simple trail to find the guy.
However, what I found somewhat creepy was that they found CCTV of the same guy buying the fireworks in Pennsylvania, well over a month before the incident. Apparently, buying plain old 50mg firecrackers in PA requires a signature, an ID, and the video retention policy isn't just a week or less like most CCTV. Can they find video of your visit two months ago? Six months? How long before every Wal*Mart and ATM have a solid
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
You do realise that a) we're talking about speed cameras here and not CCTV and b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.
The UK has 6,000 speed cameras. From daily mail:
Drivers were clobbered with 1.23million tickets in 2008, of which 1.03million were issued by speed cameras, the Home Office report revealed. The tickets raised more than £73million for the Treasury that year, or £200,000 a day. In total, 16million tickets have been issued since 1997, raising £913million.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like the speeding idiots saved Daily Mail readers £73 million in tax. How can they disapprove?
primate problems (Score:2, Funny)
Too Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the idea of strict enforcement, I hate the currently implemented use of selective enforcement which has lead state and local governments to utilize "speed enforcement" as a revenue generation racket. This was made very clear and apparent in the state of Virginia which, in 2006 implemented "Civil Remedial" fees in order to help fill short gaps in the state budget. This is a very nasty habit state governments have gotten into in order to avoid increasing taxes.
Strict enforcement will cause a public bac
Speeding camera's are all about revenue (Score:3, Informative)
They don't do anything to slow down speeders. If anything they contribute to accidents and traffic problems since speeders will slam on their brakes when they see one.
In Europe, speeding camera's are common and it's also common to shoot them, burn them or otherwise vandalize them: http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm [speedcam.co.uk]
Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's incredibly rare for anyone to vandalise a camera.
I spend most of my time driving around the UK and I have never seen a vandalised camera.
Anyway, you should not be worried about radar type speed cameras. The insidious type is the "average speed camera".
These are linked in with the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system database, and work by calculating your average speed between two points. By doing this they effectively track the movements and location of every car in the country.
Cameras make sense if you lower the fine (Score:2)
Speeding tickets are expensive because not all speeders get caught. So if you have a system that catches everybody, the ticket rate should be substantially reduced. A small chance of a large ticket and a guaranteed chance of a small ticket should have similar deterrence rates. Anything more is a money grab.
Doesn't matter (Score:2, Troll)
The REAL story about the Legislature's failing to (Score:4, Informative)
...act on a ban... and a little side info for you out of staters...
"Lawmakers considered repeal proposals within months, but set the issue aside and appealed for calmer debate when a passing motorist fatally shot a camera-van operator doing paperwork in his marked vehicle in April 2009.""
This is NOT why the lawmakers didn't move forward with repealing the plan. It was about money and lobbying - period.
Background - I'm from Arizona, and I've been helping collect signatures for camerafraud.com and their petition drive to ban ALL photo enforcement in Arizona. I've been following this issue VERY closely, and I've been in touch with multiple legislators - my rep in person multiple times - and here's the short, short version of the real story behind the state legislature's failure to do anything.
Arizona State Rep. Sam Crump, who adamantly opposes the cameras, authored a House bill to ban the state highway speed cameras. (While other legislative efforts were attempted with amendments to other non-related bills, his was the most prominent and likely to succeed.) It passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee (which Sam sat on) on party lines. (Democrats universally opposed removing them. I'm not 100% sure why Dems were united... One said, "It's scary to drive on the roads." Another from the T&I committee said, "I'm an ER doctor," and went on to describe the "carnage" from accidents. And so on... But in the end, I think all the Democrats did it for political reasons - because the system was Janet Napalitano's brain child (along with Jay Heiler and other Redflex lobbyists pushing her for it), and they don't dare step on her powerful Democrat toes.)
After his bill passed the T&I and Rules committees, it suddenly stopped moving. I asked Sam why, and he assured me that he'd been promised it'd get a whole House floor vote.
At about this time, the driver was shot and killed in the van, and politics did get involved somewhat, but both sides claimed that the shooting supported their views. "The man wouldn't have been shot if he wasn't there in the first place with a speed camera," vs., "You see? Our society is falling apart. We NEED this kind of surveillance to discourage criminal activity," etc.
(Ironically enough, it was human witnesses that followed the shooter after the crime and gave detailed accounts that led to Destories's arrest - NOT all of the 24/7 video being shot by the camera van or any of the other $200,000+ worth of Big Brother-like technology deployed there in the van... Just like the NYC Times Square bomb was thwarted by people just paying attention... but that's another discussion for another time).
Meanwhile, the cameras were taking hundreds of thousands of pictures. Some were in high speed areas, but the more nefarious cameras were located right at 65 to 55 speed limit change locations (on the 51). Many people who didn't mind the cameras and generally drove safely were suddenly getting $181.50 tickets in the mail, and they were FURIOUS. This anger, combined with a New Times article that let the cat out of the bag about how you could just throw the tickets in the garbage, led to a general revolt against the cameras. As of today, only about 30% of all of the "criminals" were actually paid their photo tickets (the majority just threw the non-legally-binding "Notices of Violation" in the garbage, and forced process servers to chase them down - with only limited success. Many people were challenging the tickets in the state courts, which ultimately were being flooded to the point that you couldn't get a court date for several months for any issues.
Back at the capital, the state's budget crisis was growing by the day. Billions in annual shortfalls were becoming a reality, and the cameras WERE making some money from the people who actually just paid up. The top GOP man in the House - Speaker Kirk Adams - saw the political problems brewing. They couldn't cut the camera revenue and "let speeders off the hook" while they were cuttin
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Stop being stupid.
The cameras weren't removed because someone shot one of the camera-van operators. The decision on whether or not to remove the cameras was postponed so that the murder wouldn't influence the decision, the *exact* *opposite* of what you suggest.
Can you read? Or do you just not care?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that is that the ballot that goes in that ballot box usually looks something like this:
O - idiot who won't listen to the populace, because he's got his own agenda.
O - idiot who won't listen to the populace, because he doesn't understand the issues.
O - idiot who won't listen to the populace, because they're in the back pocket of the corps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then I guess you haven't lived in countries where certain violations of religious law results in harsh penalties including death and dismemberment.
I come from Texas. Some would say Texas is just as bad or at least a step or two better than Arizona. I am accustomed to the mindsets commonly found within Texas and I don't find them unreasonable. "Reasonable" is also quite "regional" as it turns out. I live in an east coast state now and the attitudes and mindsets are COMPLETELY different. Most notably, so
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
no way back (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed cameras, like any other Big Brother tools, reproduce by binary fission. Usually, once you agree to one, suddenly you find yourself facing down the lens everywhere you go. Just look at the folks across the ocean. They used to be a proud empire, now even their most fervent US-mockers recognize the extent to which their freedom has been curtailed.
The fact that folks in Arizona managed to get rid of the cameras is a testament to the fact that at least some of the U.S. still values their freedom, and that the Big Brother is not yet fully in control.
Also, if you read the article it appears as if that one incident wasn't the chief reason the cameras were scrapped, but rather that it was a contentious issue for the November ballot that they didn't want to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the proof. I got a ticket from one of those speeding cameras in the mail. I looked at the ticked and saw that they only had a partial image of the license plate and the vehicle didn't match mine. So, I called them up and told them that and they said, "Okay we'll take it off" and that was the end of it. There was no "big brother" involved, no court
Re:no way back (Score:5, Informative)
(Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught.)
Except of course the camera had nothing to do with his apprehension.
But don't let facts ruin your ridiculous ad-hominem tirade.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught."
You know the guy on camera had nothing to do with the attempted attack, right? He was just some innocent bystander taking his shirt off on a hot day, caught on camera, and thereafter imbroiled in an investigation which was wasting police time and inflaming the public as the actual terrorist almost got away? You know that, right?
But I suppose that's more support for your
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just look at the folks across the ocean. They used to be a proud empire, now even their most fervent US-mockers recognize the extent to which their freedom has been curtailed."
4,000 of the UK's speed cameras are Gatsos which are stationary, are not networked, do not monitor in real time, and are only trigged to take still images when they detect someone speeding. There's no real freedom issue here if you agree that it's acceptable to capture individual still images of people breaking the law as evidence fo
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "Insightful" in any way. It's a gross straw-man argument.
Dude, slippery slope arguments are stupid. You like to be able to go over the speed limit, and speed cameras make it difficult to do so. Just be honest and say that, don't make some stupid slippery slope argument about privacy.
That's another straw-man. I want to go faster I can now, given the limit, not because I am so eager to break the law, but because they are set too low, in order to generate more revenue for the state/city/municipality etc...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My state recently pushed the highway speedlimit to 70mph. You should get yours to do the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What they do do is cause traffic
Schizophrenic road design that can't decide on the purpose of the road is what causes traffic.
What you describe is "driving the speed limit", which may or may not be set by insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thing about speed cameras is that the focus rarely seems to be on actually getting traffic to flow at a safe speed.
I've seen some good systems which focus on indicating to drivers when they're going too fast.(rather than trying to keep them from realising they've slipped over the limit so you can fine them)
Traffic lights suspended over the road, if you're going above the speed limit it goes orange, then red.
As you drop bellow the speed limit it goes green again, you only get done for speeding if you fly through the red.
It sounds odd but since there are lots of them and people are used to them it's quite safe and it keeps traffic at a steady speed.
With the current system they seem only too happy to let you speed as long as they can get money out of you for it.
Imagine if you will a state where theft were punished only with a fine and then instead of trying to prevent thefts the police concentrated purely on issuing fines.
Re: (Score:2)
With the current system they seem only too happy to let you speed as long as they can get money out of you for it.
Imagine if you will a state where theft were punished only with a fine and then instead of trying to prevent thefts the police concentrated purely on issuing fines.
You hit the nail on the head here, and speed cameras is a technical "solution" to a human problem. I live in Norway where speed cameras are common as well as other measures to try to prevent people from doing something not desirable. You can't purchase beer after 20:00 in weekdays and 18:00 on Saturdays in food stores for instance. The thing is, in the example with the beer, it reduces drinking because alcohol is less available. The problem as I see it though, is that you still have a rotten society full of
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You touched on it at the end of your comment, but my preferred solution is improved technology: is there a way to design roads and cars that can be safely navigated at the speeds people want to drive? Can we make a highway and a car both safe at 100 MPH?
The angry people always harumph and tell everyone to slow down, and I don't understand that. If we MUST choose between safety and convenience, then I'm willing to go with safety (to an extent), but in this case I think it's a total false choice. Let's have both!
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do some research and try to find accidents that were caused solely by speeding. I do not mean accidents where "speed was a factor" but the actual impact was caused by the at-fault driver failing to yield right of way (indeed, the fact that someone is speeding is all the more reason not to pull out in front of them). I mean accidents caused by speeding alone; for one example, a case where (let's say) the tires could not come up with enough traction to keep the vehicle on the road at that speed, resulting in an accident. Or an accident caused by a hazard that the vehicle could have maneuvered around at the speed limit but could not maneuver around in time when exceeding it. Good luck, for these are difficult to find.
What my years in the auto insurance industry taught me were that two things are the primary cause of all the accidents and claim reports I saw: following too closely and failure to yield right of way. Most of the single-vehicle accidents did not involve high rates of speed, or at least the police reports did not mention speeding. Most of those involved people who fell asleep at the wheel, were drunk, were texting or otherwise engaged in distracted driving, or things of that nature. Yet "strangely enough" the emphasis of traffic enforcement is placed on speeding, likely because it happens frequently, is easy to demonstrate in court, and produces a lot of revenue for the state.
I laugh when my state plays public-service commercials on the radio talking about how you shouldn't speed and you should wear your seatbelt because the cops and the state care about your safety. Every time I hear those, I think "yeah, and if the ticket money went to charity I might just believe that."
The one place where speed limits make a lot of sense is also a place where accidents are relatively rare: residential neighborhoods where there may be children playing. Yet the cops don't seem to pay much attention to these areas because they don't generally have heavy traffic. I am much more likely to see a cop sitting near the 65mph highway running radar than anyplace where people live. If you assume that ticket revenue is what the state cares about, then this makes perfect sense. More traffic == more vehicles == more traffic violations == more tickets == more revenue for the state. To say this is about safety is a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
...and you're not obligated to return the stolen property, just pay the fine of 70% of black market value of stolen wares...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
And school zones. While I was going out to get some errands done I hit a school zone. Flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up. Obviously a warning that school is letting out and the zone is now 20MPH.
The road is a 4 lane (2 each way) and as you could guess where I'm going with this.. A SUV flies by me on the right and weaves through traffic doing at least 45. He/She also ran a yellow with a ton of kids waiting to cross.
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And school zones. While I was going out to get some errands done I hit a school zone. Flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up. Obviously a warning that school is letting out and the zone is now 20MPH.
The road is a 4 lane (2 each way) and as you could guess where I'm going with this.. A SUV flies by me on the right and weaves through traffic doing at least 45. He/She also ran a yellow with a ton of kids waiting to cross.
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
Even better - put police officers there. Where I live, it's not uncommon to see a cop, sitting in the median, watching for speeders. He's readily visible, and has the effect of slowing people down. Even so, he or she is also regularly writing a ticket.
The problem with speed cameras is they have little direct deterrent effect - the are an after the fact gotcha (which often is not a traffic violation so they avoid having to deal with them in court) - and as such would not prevent the scenario you describe;
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree it sounds that way, but in this case it's a real and present danger. We're not talking about some obscure law or politicians whim. Speeding through a school zone during school hours is just a _stupid_ thing to do.
Shit, I worry about driving on side roads for fear of a 5 year old chasing a ball at dusk. Obviously you can't stop driving in school zones or in residential areas, but you can _stop_ being a jackass and at least realize you're driving a 2 ton chunk of metal that will snap a kid in two in an instant.
That is why picture enforcement of school zone speed limits _is_ something I would support.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
legislating against jackassery is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
The use of COPS doesn't seem people from speeding past the school near me. They _often_ have police officers idling around when students are coming or leaving. What makes you think cameras will be any better at stopping jackasses from speeding?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously it's too late to solve this problem now, but I always wondered by schools are ever built near busy streets. Forget about the safety issues -- the distracting noise alone is a good enough reason to tuck them away in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Busy streets should be near commercial businesses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And then where I live, they put speed cameras that are active 24/7 in construction zones. So up to 75% of the time the cameras are running there aren't even construction workers present, and there's no notification that a speed camera is ahead, and yet I'm supposed to believe the primary purpose is to slow down traffic in order to reduce injury. Hardly.
If traffic cameras weren't used so often for money grabs, perhaps people would actually be more in favour of them being used to improve safety.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hundreds of children get out at the same time, they are like you on the way home after work. Some kids are dumb but it's more like unobservant or distracted. For SAFETY reasons the speedlimit is temporarily reduced. Nobody slams on their brakes at the 20mph sign, do they do this when leaving the 70mph highway to the 35mph side road? no, you slow down.
I'd rather inconvenience you for 500meters than have hundreds of kids crossing a potential killzone.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely that depends on how stupid your populace are? If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it then yeah, they're not going to improve things. If, however, people go "there's a speed camera - what speed should I be doing? Better make sure I don't exceed the limit" then you're fine. They're only a money making scheme because people are too stupid and arrogant to keep to the speed limit.
Red light cameras are a bit different - they've got a variable you can tweak. Speed cameras allow a threshold (although they don't have to in the UK, by law) and can be tested and calibrated.
(Said as a former driver who now mainly cycles - but it applies to both parts of my commuting life)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends entirely on if the speed limit is set with any regard to what a safe speed is for the area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can also hide the speed cameras, artificially lower the speed limit, make the camera on a hair trigger (or even trigger slightly below the speed limit and misreport.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Surely that depends on how stupid your populace are? If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it
> then yeah, they're not going to improve things.
I wouldn't say I have been repeatedly caught, I have gotten one speeding ticket and two that would have been but they did me a supposed "favor" and ticketed me for something else. Either way they get their hour and a half on their time sheet for a ticket (yes they do here in MA) and my insurance company still got to bilk me
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Red light cameras are a bit different - they've got a variable you can tweak.
Except, of course, speed cameras have a variable too, the posted speed limit. Several times now we've seen speed limits intentionally lowered in ways to make conditions less safe, but provide greater revenue. We've also seen instances where speed limits change radically in areas where visibility of the sign is poor. The basic problem is, we can't trust the people placing the cameras and deciding the speed limits to act in the best interests of the people instead of the best interests of their department's
Re: (Score:3)
That's what speed cameras are for, to keep everyone compliant and going at the same speed...
The question is, why do you believe speed cameras keep everyone going at the same speed? There have been a few, very obviously unscientific studies of the data, but I've not seen a single reasonable study of the issue that claims that is the case. From my own personal observations, it seems to cause more rapid variation of speed as people slow down then speed up for cameras. So why would a reasonable person believe they reduce accidents?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
speeding cameras are really about making money and do little to increase public safety. How many times do people have to catch the read light cameras being intentially set with short yellows to figure that out (the yellow is changed short as many cameras operate at a loss if they don't) If the companies that make and operate them were forced to be a non-profit with the highest paid employee no more than $85k in total compensation I wonder how many people would be pushing them?
Are we talking about speeding cameras or red light cameras?
Sure, at an intersection with a camera you can set the yellow short and catch people that really aren't doing anything wrong...
But a speed camera is set to tag people going over a certain speed. If you're doing the posted speed limit you shouldn't get in trouble.
Yeah, obviously, there's room to abuse pretty much anything on the planet... But I would think it somewhat harder to abuse a speed camera.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'know what gets people to slow down? A real cop, lighting you up, pulling you over, and having to sit by the side of the road (as you watch every car that was doing the speed limit glide on by for 20 minutes :) as you await your fate.
I got my first ticket in 20 years of driving during a recent road trip. I knew I was speeding, he knew I was speeding, and after he wrote me up, I actually thanked him for the reality check. Had it been a camera, I'd have paid the fine and not changed my behavior for the rest of the trip, because I wouldn't have known about it until I got home. As it was, I kept it to within 5 of the limit for the rest of my trip, and to my surprise, even in the extremely remote areas of the state - we're talking the kind of places where you're the only car within miles miles - slowing it down wasn't as boring as I'd thought it would be.
Speed cameras don't deter speeders. Immediate negative feedback does.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Y'know what gets people to slow down? A real cop, lighting you up, pulling you over, and having to sit by the side of the road (as you watch every car that was doing the speed limit glide on by for 20 minutes :) as you await your fate.
Here's what I think would also slow people down in an educational way: A device reading the speed of vehicles (no camera needed), made very obvious, followed by a traffic light 50-80 meters further down the road which will turn red when someone passes the reading device at too high a speed. So that going at or below the speed limit is the fastest way to get through.
Alternatively, since license plate readers should be getting cheaper, a reading device plus a display a bit further which displays your license plate, name of the car's owner and speed when you go too fast. A flashing light "reduce speed" on its own helps a lot where these things are installed in England; with the additional information I think it would work very well indeed to reduce speed.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of construction zones in Ohio do it differently. They have a guy in a truck with sticks to hog the whole road drive at the posted zone limit all day long, he slows down the idiots by making them not able to pass him. It's quite effective as all he needs to to is generate a "pressure wave" of cars bunched up and the average speed stays down.
but talk about a boring job. all day to day you drive up and down the construction zone over and over and over and over....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. I drive at completely reasonable speeds on limited access highways, which are often above the speed limit. I get a speeding ticket every few years. Most of the time they knock them down to non-moving violations. So every few years I have to pay $150 or so and usually hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Police enforcement will do. No need to infringe on our privacy for that. And if you say - you're in public, you don't need privacy - I say, wait until someone sends you a picture to your house of you going 1 mph over the speed limit while your mistress is in the car with you.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's a legitimate safety issue, then it's worth having an actual human police officer monitor or patrol the area. That's quite a bit different from the "administrative" issue of going a little faster than the speed limit on an open highway with no such hazards. The joke there is that speeding is not precisely illegal, it's just taxed. Which leads me to another point (from the summary)...
If we really cared about freeing up police for more serious matters, we'd stop prosecuting nonviolent drug users. Do the research sometime and look at how many cops, courts, and much jail/prison space is currently devoted to these victimless crimes. Then imagine what that effort would accomplish if it were put towards violent criminals and scammers who directly harm other people with their crimes.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? You can't do five minutes of your own research? I simply copied and pasted your above statement [google.com] into Google, and this link, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/ [cdc.gov] , was fourth from the top. It includes a lot of documents that are relevant, including this useful summary:
During the 1995 to 2002 period, 844 workers were killed while working at a road construction site. During this same period there were 9325 deaths in the construction industry. The 844 worker deaths in road construction represent 9% of all deaths in construction. More than half of these fatalities were attributable to a worker being struck by a vehicle or mobile equipment. Workplace fatalities that occur at a road construction site typically account for 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of all workplace fatalities annually.
of this document: Source: Fatal occupational injuries at road construction sites [bls.gov]
Road construction fatality rates are disproportionately higher than most other occupations. As to whether or not Arizona is more or less prone to road construction fatalities, the document only ranks the top and bottom five, and Arizona was in neither. But even if their work zones were among the safest in the nation, that's not saying much. It's still a very hazardous occupation.
Further summarizing the document's contents, of the 693 fatalities between 1995 and 2002, 509 were due to a worker being struck by a vehicle. The rest were "construction" types of accidents, including falls, struck by objects, contact with electricity, etc. Of the 509 deaths caused by vehicles, 363 occurred in the roadway, and 119 occurred off to the side of the road.
So don't delude yourself for a moment into thinking that work zones aren't dangerous places for workers, or that traffic isn't the primary cause of death for the workers. It is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to think the 'council worker' type workpeople had it easy, leaning on their shovels all day etc. But they are out there in 40C degree heat, and 0C degree cold, working meters from cars that are supposed to be doing 40kph but aren't doing anything like it (i never realised how scary that was until I had to change a tyre on a busy road - i got as far off as I could but was nervous the whole time. I definitely have a whole lot more respect for the job than I used to.
As for the "citation needed" statemen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, we have a lot of Department of Transportation (DoT) jokes:
Q: What's orange and sleeps three?
A: A DoT truck.
Q: Why did the DoT worker boycott a Japanese company?
A: For inventing a shovel that leans by itself.
In Minnesota, we have two seasons: winter, and road construction.
I'm sure there are others. But yeah, I do take the work zones very seriously. I'm scared for those guys, and I'd hate myself if I hurt someone because I was speeding through their workplace.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and the fifth link down from your query is this: Literture Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries [nhtsa.gov]. I'll paste from the abstract of the first document cited:
16. Abstract
The relationship between vehicle travel speeds and resulting pedestrian injury was reviewed in the literature and in existing data sets. Results indicated that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively.
There are other documents in the report that go on to discuss photo enforcement efforts in Arizona, but they're not quite as relevant.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
So whats the relevant conclusion? That work zones should have a 20mph speed limit? Of course getting hit by a slower moving car is less likely to kill you. What is less clear is whether artificially low speed limits on freeways/hiways prevent accidents.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
So whats the relevant conclusion? That work zones should have a 20mph speed limit? Of course getting hit by a slower moving car is less likely to kill you. What is less clear is whether artificially low speed limits on freeways/hiways prevent accidents.
Your bias is showing a bit, I think. Your challenge:
Specifically that people speeding in construction zones is an actual problem in AZ that causes injuries/deaths.
Since we can now all read the links above and agree that 'artificially low speed limits' reduce fatalities, you've opted to shift the discussion to just 'accidents' in general, without any respect to "injuries/deaths". However, this would NOT obviate the value in the limits. The reduction in death is enough to slow drivers down while in construction zones. The cost of doing so is assumed to be far lower than even a single human life... ...unless you're ready to shift the debate between the value of life and the right to drive as fast as you want.
You asked for citations, got them, and now are re-framing the debate. Why?
Again, I suspect bias.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are other documents in the report that go on to discuss photo enforcement efforts in Arizona, but they're not quite as relevant.
Firstly, construction zones and pedestrian areas are not the same thing.
Secondly, as I understand it the speed limit in construction zones is 45mph. That's going to give a fatality rate (based on the abstract) of somewhere between 95% and 100%. The difference between that and having the speed limit still at 65 (or whatever - >50mph) is basically nothing - it's still j
Your missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, of course, you can't stop sooner at a lower speed or have more time to make an adjustment when going slower.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't arguing that the workers aren't in danger- they do a tough, dangerous job, and if they are killed doing it, its a footnote on the back page, not a full front page spread that cops get. I really appreciate the work they do.
Thats certainly a step in the right direction study-wise (a world better than the above AC's 'cite'), but I don't see anything in the study that says speeding vehicles and/or lower limits made things safer. In many semi-permanent construction sites things could be done to make things safer for all, and mixing 45mph traffic with 75mph traffic isn't the first one I'd try. Unless of course, someone has done that kind of study and found that regardless of the chaos it causes it is the best way to go.
The common knee-jerk reaction to problems on the road is- lower the limit 10, 20, 30 mph. Guess what? It rarely works, but it does create a nice revenue stream.
Umm, misinterpreted? (Score:5, Informative)
".. Worker being struck by a vehicle," does not always mean that they were hit by a passenger car. Sometimes it does, but I suspect that the majority of those incidents were along the line of, "run over by a (backhoe | forklift | dumptruck)."
In fact, "In 54 percent (274) of the cases, a truck struck the worker. Of these trucks, 36 percent were dump trucks, 21 percent were pickup trucks, and 19 percent were semitrailer, tractor trailer, or trailer trucks. Automobiles were the source in 28 percent (143) of all cases of struck by vehicle or mobile equipment at road construction sites. Finally, construction machinery, which includes backhoes, levelers, planers, scrapers, steamrollers, and road pavers, accounted for 11 percent (56) of the struck by vehicle or mobile equipment fatalities." In short, we tend to run over our own.
This data is also over a seven year period. Please read your own data, and note that it points to traffic not being the primary cause of of death for workers. Most of those trucks and some of those cars are probably workers. I pity the poor bastard that was taken out by a steamroller.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
WTF? The stats you provide show the exact opposite of what you claim. Construction deaths in a workzone is akin to being struck by lightning. Literally. Murder accounts for some 306 times as many deaths. Driving account for some 670 times as many deaths.
844 deaths in a 7 year period. 120.5 deaths a year.
No more than half of those are caused by cars. 60.25
At most, likely less due to mobile equipment, 61 people a year die in work zones from cars. Nationwide.
That's one person a state per year. That's no where near dangerous. Here are some comparison numbers. http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml [weather.gov] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf [cdc.gov]
Deaths per year:
Car Accidents ~40,000
Murder: 18,573
Hurricane 116
Heat 114
Flood 64
Worker struck by Car in Workzone 61
Lightning 59
Tornado 56
Going grocery shopping is more dangerous than construction in a work zone.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Multiple anecdotes (let alone single ones) aren't data.
The question in your case would be: does lowering the speed limit to 45mph in the construction area actually make things safer? If it then causes a mix of 75 and 45 traffic, the answer is- probably not. The goal here is to make things safer, right? Not enforce arbitrary limits because it makes you feel better. Has the big push for low work zone speed limits mixed with 2-5x fines actually reduced fatalities and serious injuries? If so- thats the cite requested.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm against cameras as well, same as marked police cars sitting on the median. All it does is make people slam on their brakes who were going the speed limit anyway, so now everybody is going 15 under all because of that one police car.
I'm curious why you assume I'm going to ask for citations. I'm not talking about a car going 75 hitting my car going 45. I'm talking about a roadside worker or pedestrian getting hit by a car going 45. When I mentioned the ability to maneuver, I was talking about the person in the car. I doubt my reaction time would be fast enough to dodge a car going 45 or 75.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that their beef isn't with people who drive the speed limit, but rather with people who drive no faster than the lane to their right.
If you aren't driving faster than the lane to your right, then you should move over. Sure, it's the law if that's what motivates you, but more importantly it's the right, proper, social, moral thing to do. Share the road.
This message is not directed at the parent AC; it is directed at anyone who thinks it's okay to ignore lane courtesy out of a misplaced sense of s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The beltways are pretty special. As many as 8 lanes going in one direction. No, no one expects you to cruise in the rightmost lane. Cruising should be in the second and third right most lane, and the speed should increase as you move left. It doesn't change the rule stated by GP.
As for smaller city and urban highways (less than 4 lanes each way) the rules don't change either. Merging and slower traffic on the right, faster traffic on the left. If everyone did this, the traffic jams called "commutes" w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You make a good point, but be careful not to equate "right lane" with "right-most lane". If you are on a six-lane highway, and driving the limit, then you are probably driving faster than the people entering and exiting -- right? If so, then you belong at least one lane to the left, maybe more; if not, if you really are driving the same speed as incoming and outgoing traffic, then sorry, yes, you belong in that right-most lane with those cars.
The lane-to-speed theory is very simple. Just look to your right.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, what can I say, I think you are driving like a jerk. You decline to share the road, and I think that's jerkish behavior. Obviously, many people think that anyone who goes above the limit are jerks, too; and reasonable people can disagree. It is my opinion that not only are you driving like a jerk, but also causing unsafe conditions. I wish you would reconsider your rude driving habits and drive in the lane appropriate to your speed.
For the record, I'm an American, and on highways I find my preferred driving speed is about 65-70. On some roads, despite a 65 MPH limit, this puts me at the very bottom of the speed of traffic, and I have no problem driving in the slow lane. Sometimes, less often, it puts me at the top of the speed of traffic and I use left lanes. I don't try to justify forcing other people to drive my speed -- those other drivers doing 80 are almost always driving perfectly safely, and I do not beef them for getting where they are going at their own speed.
Good luck. Really, consider driving in the slow lane. The slow lane can be very nice and relaxing.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound to me like a douche who shouldn't be allowed to drive. I KNOW that there are signs in Arizona that state that the left lane is for passing only. It doesn't matter whether you've seen them - maybe you should pay more attention. It doesn't even matter if those signs are posted on the specific stretches of highway that you drive on. You OBVIOUSLY know that it's the law, and the right way to drive.
If coping with traffic is to much for you, then quit driving. Get an apartment within walking distance of your job. Or, biking distance.
GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE LEFT LANE UNLESS YOU ARE PASSING!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, wow, even though I disagree with you I certainly don't agree with whoever modded you Troll. How is that a troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that if they have no problem stopping people in the streets to demand they prove they are hear legally, why not repurpose cameras they have already paid for and put them on the border?
Re: (Score:2)
Or...you know....here legally...not hear...wow, lol :-)
Re:Why take them out? (Score:4, Informative)
So are you implying that they should not have a secure border or not? Hard to read your comment.
A secure border is one thing...
Stopping random people and asking to see their papers just because they look like they might be illegal is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That would only catch the really fast ones.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would only catch the really fast ones.
What, you mean like this one? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't get me wrong...I feel that Arizona as a State has a right to make any kind of law regarding immigration it wants. It's not my place nor anyone else who doesn't live there to tell you folks how to handle your problems.
It just means Arizona won't be getting any of tourist dollars, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd learn English they could. ;-)