Photo Radar

Replying to: euphonium (Jan 09, 2009 10:35 am)

Replies to this message:
• andys120 (Jan 09, 2009 4:57 pm)
  • fezo (Jan 09, 2009 5:03 pm)
    • andys120 (Jan 09, 2009 9:17 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 09, 2009 10:18 am)

Replies to this message:
• fezo (Jan 09, 2009 1:31 pm)

Replying to: grbeck (Jan 09, 2009 1:09 pm)

Replying to: grbeck (Jan 09, 2009 1:07 pm)

Replies to this message:
• grbeck (Jan 12, 2009 11:21 am)
  • larsb (Jan 12, 2009 11:50 am)
    • grbeck (Jan 13, 2009 2:57 pm)

Replying to: euphonium (Jan 09, 2009 10:35 am)

The investment income will be used to give more above-market perks to worthless public sector executives, and to engage in more asinine useless projects like the WSP and WSDOT combining their collective room temperature IQs to blow tens of thousands of dollars on big dots for I5.
 
When well connected crony capitalist camera operators skim off fortunes from ticket revenues, the taxpaying citizen has every right to know where the money goes, and should take legal or less than legal action against any irresponsible politoco who tries to hide it.
 
If one doesn't want to pay the fine, simply fib your way out of it. Easy as pie

Replying to: euphonium (Jan 09, 2009 10:35 am)

The investment income can be allocated to filling pot holes,fixing guard rails, and building attitude adjustment chambers.
 
Wait, didn't we spend four years trying to overthrow a regime like that back in the 1940's?
 
As for that "investment income", rest assured it would go into some politician's pet project, or a pyramid scheme somewhere, and we'd still have just as many potholes, broken guardrails, etc, as before.

Replying to: euphonium (Jan 09, 2009 10:35 am)

Replying to: fezo (Jan 09, 2009 1:08 pm)

'm pretty much against any camera enforcement of traffic rules. One only need look at the fact that they generally do not carry points to see that deep down they don't believe these are enforceable tickets but, as has been pointed out to a fault here, but revenue enhancers
 
Fezo-You've spelled out exactly why it doesn't bother me that much:
 
-The state is going to nick you one way or the other, most have to make their budgets balance. The alternative to this "speed tax" is something that's a lot harder to avoid like higher income, sales or property taxes.
 
 -If you get nailed by a Highway Patrol at 10 over it's going to cost way more you than a buck 65 once you figure in insurance surcharges.
 
-Arizona speeds limits are generally pretty reasonable, in fact I've found it difficult to maintain the posted speed of 75mph on I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson, so much so that I take the back way thru Florence, a 2 lane posted at 65 (AZ 79 to you Zonians), it's actually faster due to being less crowded. If you're more than 10 over the posted limits here you're probably going too fast.
 
  Back East it's another story, 65 mph is just too low for stretches like I-93 in NH or I-287 in the Adirondacks.
 
I'll do some research on those polarized (Fresnel) lic plate covers and get back to you.

Replies to this message:
• fezo (Jan 09, 2009 5:03 pm)
  • andys120 (Jan 09, 2009 9:17 pm)

Replying to: andys120 (Jan 09, 2009 4:57 pm)

Replies to this message:
• andys120 (Jan 09, 2009 9:17 pm)

Replying to: fezo (Jan 09, 2009 5:03 pm)

I especially appreciate that last sentence...
 
Here ya go>
 
Cover your plate
or spray on.
 
I make no representation to the effectiveness of said measures.