This isn't going to be fun. The city of Surprise, Arizona (where I live) is planning to spring surprises on motorists in the near future.
While many cities in the Phoenix area now have static speed enforcement cameras, Surprise is going to use a camera equipped trailer. The town's top cop says the camera could be moved several times per week and will be used in areas where citizens have complained about speeders. He specifically mentions school zones (where speed limits are a creepy 15 mph) and residential neighborhoods but we know the big bucks are to be made on major roads.
One has to wonder, since trailers are pretty easy to move, how they'll keep the citizenry from upending the thing or simply spinning it around so it points in some awkward direction. Towing it to the local landfill might be a hoot
The PD hasn't decided whether the camera locations will be posted online.
That is going to make it interesting!
They are doing something similar in Tucson. They have several speed vans that are moved in the city. They do post the location to the newspaper, but since they use photo radar they are undetectable by radar and you can't program your GPS to find them. Its annoying.
Isn't that a shame some will be annoyed because if they speed they may get a ticket. Those that complain about RLC's and photo radar are usually the worst culprits. Obey the speed limits and you won't have to be so annoyed.
Is it just me or are there others that get tired of those who post, "well just don't speed and you won't have to worry about speed cams"?
See what the cameras are really for.... a way for the various governments to make more money. They can't manage a budjet, they spend "our" tax dollars to build things that they think will "generate more revenue", then when they can't figure out how to overcome "their" budget shortfalls, come up with ways to get more money from us taxpayers.
Another example: In Kalifornia, they're trying to pass a ruling that if your kid is late for school that kid will get a "ticket", then the parent of that child will have to pay $100 everytime that kid is late for school. Gee, I wonder why they came up that? Budget cuts included education/school cuts? Oh, we'll just fine all of the kid's parents $100 everytime they're late, that way we can get some of the lost budget money back.
Oh, I'm sorry.... "well if you leave early enough you won't be late and won't get a ticket". You need to see through the fog buddy.
One of the main points of this site is to discuss redlight and speed cameras.
The question that you haven't answered is if the statement is false. Isn't it true that if you don't speed you won't be ticketed by a speed camera? Is it also not true if you come to a full and complete stop at an intersection you will not be ticketed?
In some jurisdictions new rules are taking away a lot of the "it's for revenue only arguments." Maryland legislators set a new basic speed limit law into effect on October 1 which set the tolerance for photo radar speed enforcement at 12 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. They also stated speed camera infractions could not be prosecuted for violations occurring after 8:00 PM and before 6 AM in school zones.
The US Department of Transportation also stated the practice of painting "enforcement markings" on streets was not in agreement with the manual on uniform traffic control devices and encroachment into said zones would not be enforceable under the uniform traffic laws.
But nowhere has anyone been able to refute the statement "Don't."
a_user, let me first congratulate you on being named one of this site's "Contributors of the Year 2009". Your recognition is well-deserved.
The question that you haven't answered is if the statement is false. Isn't it true that if you don't speed you won't be ticketed by a speed camera?
No, it is not true, as my personal experience will attest. In April 2008, I received a photo citation for allegedly driving at 56 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Now, in Arizona, where this citation was issued, photo radar cameras are set, we are told, to trigger only if the vehicle's speed is 11 or more MPH above the posted limit. When the camera flashed, I instinctively looked at my GPS speedometer and it was registering a steady 53 MPH. I decided to go to court, without an attorney, because I knew something wasn't right. I just had no idea how I was going to prove it, since in traffic court, let's be honest, the "presumption of innocence" is largely ignored.
Before court was called into session a police officer called my name. She was there to show me the "additional evidence" they were going to present. It was stuff I had never seen before and which hadn't been sent to me when they sent the summons and the photos of me and my car. And there was a lot of it.
But two items in particular caught my eye. One was a wide-angle shot of my car passing the camera, and the other was a scattergram which purported to show the amount and speeds of vehicular traffic at the site of the camera for a period of five minutes before and and five minutes after I was photographed. The officer took great pains to explain to me that the scattergram showed that there were three other vehicles passing the camera at the same moment I was, all of which were, according to the officer, going below the 55 MPH "actual" speed limit.
I looked at the photo and the chart for a minute or two and asked the officer why, if the scattergram indicated that three other vehicles were there at the same time, were there no other vehicles visible in the wide-angle photo? Now it was her turn to look at the "evidence" for a minute or two. Then she said, "I don't know. I will move to dismiss." Which she did.
You may view the dismissal and charges documents on two (redacted) pages by going to http://drop.io/hafpoqt/ and entering the case-sensitive password safety?revenue?. (This link will disappear in about a month, so if you're looking at this after mid-February 2010 the link may no longer be valid.)
Yes, I "won". Yes, I paid no fine. But at the same time I lost a half day's pay in order to go to court, so I consider the "victory" Pyrrhic at best. And, I'll be the first to admit it, I was damn lucky. If you want to argue that 53 in a 45 is still speeding, that's fine, but if you look at the charge on the second page you will see in the abbreviation that it represents "10 to 15" over the speed limit, not 8. Regardless, if the camera can drop you at 53, then who is to say it can't take a picture of you at 43?
I agree with you. "Don't". But you may get a ticket anyway. I rest.
No, it is not true, as my personal experience will attest. In April 2008, I received a photo citation for allegedly driving at 56 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Now, in Arizona, where this citation was issued, photo radar cameras are set, we are told, to trigger only if the vehicle's speed is 11 or more MPH above the posted limit. When the camera flashed, I instinctively looked at my GPS speedometer and it was registering a steady 53 MPH.
By your own admission, you were exceeding the posted limit by 8 MPH according to your GPS. Would the camera have flashed if you had been at or below the posted speed? So, the statement is still true, if you don't exceed the posted speed limit you will not receive a photo ticket.
EDIT: I will state that I often exceed the posted limits and am no fan of the cameras either but get involved in these discussions to point out the hypocrisy of some of the arguments.
I understand your argument. In fact my post anticipated it. My intent, though, is to demonstrate that the cameras are not infallible. And if they are not infallible, then one cannot say with certainty how they WILL fail.
So, unless you can demonstrate infallibility, or at the very least predictable fallibility, you cannot state irrefutably that "if you don't speed you won't be ticketed". That, I guess, is why we get the opportunity to contest the citations in court, however burdensome doing so may be.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2020