Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 1:42 pm) You are simply saying "It's the law" when confronted with the fact that the majority of people speed on limited access highways, as though all laws are equal, and given equal weight by not only the public and those charged with their enforcement, when they are clearly not. larsb: 1. It's a good tool to remove a human officer from issuing speeding citations, which is a mundane and mostly time-wasting event (for BOTH parties) in the VAST majority of traffic stops. Absolutely not, unless you are adocating increased police protection of Dunkin' Donuts franchises, which is where most of the police will probably congregate. Police on patrol do more than stop speeders. They also deter petty crimes that are not monitored by photo radar. Photo radar isn't going to stop someone from vandalizing your car, or snatching grandma's purse. Photo radar can even backfire regarding traffic safety. When we visited London in 2006, one of the complaints of bicyclists was that the heavy reliance on photo radar for traffic enforcement had made the roads MORE dangerous for them...with no police around, drivers were becoming MORE reckless, especially around bicyclists, and photo radar could not stop this. larsb: 3. It's a good way to generate revenue, in an era when cities are struggling to overcome budget shortfalls. It only affects people who are speeding (in most cases) at least 11 mile per hour over the limit. So "casual" speeders are not usually affected. "Arizona DPS reminds drivers that while cameras won’t catch you until you go 11 mph over the limit, officers can continue to issue citations at speeds below that threshold." So you are even getting a BREAK if you are in a photo enforcement zone !!! Traffic enforcement should not be about raising revenue; this only increases cynicism and disrepect for all traffic laws. larsb: 6. It HAS slowed down freeway traffic in the Phoenix metro area and reduced accidents and saved lives, according to the latest statistics. Accidents and fatalities have been down throughout the nation for 2008, because of reduced driving brought on by higher fuel prices and the economic downturn - and the great majority of municipalities and states don't use photo radar. lasrb: 7. The DPS Web site says that nearly 50 percent of all speed-related crashes are single-vehicle accidents and that "the risk of death and injury is directly proportional to the level of speed." You do realize that "speed-related crashes" can include driving too fast for conditions (going 55 mph in an ice storm, for example), driving too slow, or even driving too fast while intoxicated? If a legally intoxicated driver kills someone while driving 75 mph in the 65 zone, it is considered a "speed related crash," even though the root of the problem was the drunk driving. Do you also realize that state government websites regularly post phrases with sentences that say things like, "the risk of death and injury is directly proportional to the level of speed" without it necessarily being true? Especially since there has never been any proof of this. There is a difference between boilerplate to fill space and facts.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 2:00 pm) Well, it was to some degree even before Photo Radar came around. Now it's just more in the open.
|
|
|
grbeck says, "Police on patrol do more than stop speeders. They also deter petty crimes that are not monitored by photo radar. When we visited London in 2006, one of the complaints of bicyclists was that the heavy reliance on photo radar for traffic enforcement had made the roads MORE dangerous for them...with no police around, drivers were becoming MORE reckless, especially around bicyclists, and photo radar could not stop this." That's why Photo Radar will never completely replace human traffic enforcement. It's just another helpful tool. |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 12:40 pm) To extent that photo radar enforcement is identified with signs on roads when used, then it is fair. Anybody complaining about it just underscores that they are really inattentive drivers and don't pay attention as they should to all types of traffic signs as required by law. If they are caught by camera having 10 mph fudge leeway, then they deserve the ticket.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 2:18 pm) It was wrong before, and it's wrong now. If it's more out in the open, instead of celebrating it, we need to take the correct approach and stop it. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 08, 2009 7:26 pm) I'd rather have drivers pay attention to the road and other traffic than sign announcing photo radar. And I don't want drivers on interstate highways suddenly slowing down for photo radar. That hardly improves safety. And a "10 mph fudge leeway" is hardly adequate for today's conditions on limited access highways, especially where the speed limit is 65 mph. It's time to take the modern, informed approach and accept that the MINIMUM speed on many of those roads is 70 mph, and many people drive 80-85 mph, and those who don't like it will just have to get used to it. People who want to toddle along like grandma in her Buick Century should perhaps stay home...
|
|
|
"the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways" - True for some people, but mostly only younger males. When you get older, driving is more of a CHORE than any kind of FUN. The faster you drive, the more you need to pay complete attention to the road, which is why younger drivers who drive fast have more fatal accidents. I am a young 63 year old. I personally find it more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways. I do not consider driving a chore. You are not authorized to speak for anyone but yourself, BTW I have Fresnel lens covers on my license plates so they can't get a picture of them. One more item, no matter how fast or slow you drive, one should always pay complete attention to the road.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:51 am) If speed was a cause, it would be a forgone outcome that any time one exceeded the posted limit, one would have an accident. The Autobahn effectively disproves this, since speeds are far higher and the death rates significantly lower than in the US. Coincidentally, the limits of highways are quite low considering that they were designed for higher speeds when they were built in the 50s-70s, a period when vehicles and tires were far less capable.
|
|
|
Replying to: pat85 (Jan 09, 2009 8:13 am) Every rule has exceptions, and you are one of them Congrats. |
|
|
Replying to: cz75 (Jan 09, 2009 8:14 am) Well, as a rule, yes you are correct. Speeding makes an accident worse in almost every case. But speeding CAN be a CAUSE also. Example: You are driving 40 in a 25 zone. A kid's ball bounces in front of you, and you brake and swerve toward the curb to avoid it. At 25 mph, you might stop before the curb or just bump it. At 40 mph, you more than likely will jump the curb and plow into whatever is there. Thus an accident which would not have occurred without speeding now has occurred because of speeding. That's one example that just came to me, but you know there are many others. But yes, as a rule, SPEEDING BY ITSELF rarely causes accidents. True.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
