Top

Traffic speed cameras- yea or nay?

May 8, 2010 by Jaimie Hall Bruzenak · 52 Comments  
Print This Print This ·

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our E-mail Digest or RSS Feed. We will then send you the stories that are posted each day in an e-mail digest. We use a service called Feedburner for delivery of these emails. You will receive an e-mail from Feedburner after you subscribe and you must click on that email to activate your subscription. Thanks for visiting and enjoy all the information!

RV.Net Blog Admin

My first experience with a speed camera was in New Zealand while RVing with my granddaughter. Out in the middle of nowhere a sign warned that we were approaching one. Later in our trip, we read in the newspaper that a man was contesting his ticket – he claimed he had to speed to get around someone. I doubt he beat the ticket with that excuse.

Arizona has them set up on highways, more than any other state. In January, on our way to Quartzsite in our RV, and then back to Phoenix, we passed several on each trip. That is now changing. In an article at Yahoo News, Arizona is ending its program to use speed cameras along Phoenix-area highways and in vans deployed across the state. While governor, Janet Napolitano instituted the program, anticipating that it would bring in $90 million in revenues in the first year, it failed to meet its goal. In fact, many people ignore the tickets with apparently no consequences.

Governor Jan Brewer is ending the program when the contract is up on July 16. The program had received many complaints and has been the target of an initiative measure proposed for the November ballot. Local cities can still use speed cameras though not for both speeding and running red lights. (Now that makes no sense to me.)

Supporters say they slow down speeders and reduce accidents. Detractors see them as opening the door for wider “Big Brother” surveillance and are more about making money than safety. Personally, seeing how fast many Arizona drivers go, I’m in favor of them. The speed limit on I-10 west of Phoenix is 75 m.p.h. and, in most places, the road is two lanes each direction. You don’t get a ticket unless you are going at least 11 miles over the speed limit. Isn’t that enough leeway?

So, what do you think? Thumbs up for getting rid of them? Or thumbs down for caving? Or is it thumbs down for another reason?  Jaimie Hall Bruzenak

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Related Posts

Last 5 posts by Jaimie Hall Bruzenak


Comments

52 Responses to “Traffic speed cameras- yea or nay?”

  1. Brad Fuller on May 8th, 2010 10:14 pm

    I drive the speed limit and think that everyone else should also. Speeding is the cause of many accidents and deaths on the highways. Whatever it takes to slow people down is okay by me.

  2. dino on May 8th, 2010 10:36 pm

    JUST STAY TO THE RIGHT. AT LEAST i WILL KNOW HOW FAST TO GO TO PASS YOU. DON’T HOLD UP TRAFFIC BY BEING IN THE PASSING LANE. ACCIDENTS ARE CAUSED BY INATTENTIVE DRIVERS!
    BOOZED OUT DRIVERS AND THEM STUPID TEXTER’S, THEY CAUSE MORE TROUBLE. LOL.
    PEACE TO YOU – DRIVE SAFE- SEE YOU ON THE HIGHWAY! NOT IN THE DITCH.

  3. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 8th, 2010 10:48 pm

    RVers should definitely stay to the right unless they are passing someone else. I can see allowing a little leeway, but 86 mph before you get a ticket on I-10? Any many are going faster than that. That is not safe!

    Jaimie

  4. Roy Brody on May 9th, 2010 6:48 am

    I feel that if the speed limit is 75 mph and you are able to go 11 mph over that is much to fast anyway. At 86mph you are not driving the car you are amiming it. I am for the cameras if it slows down traffic and saves just one life.

  5. John C on May 9th, 2010 8:10 am

    Cameras are OK with me. I actually would like the “old” 50 MPH “Gas Saving” speed limit again. You can see and relax while driving so much more. I remember hearing that over 50 mph your vehicle is starting to lift from the pavement. I want all the stopping traction I can get!

  6. Gr8LakesCamper on May 9th, 2010 8:13 am

    The same cameras are at many intersections in some of Ohio’s cities for several years also. Newspaper stories say those who challenge their speeding ticket (or running a red light ticket) never win. Same stories also say there’s many, many unpaid tickets from those cameras.
    If you’re going to use them, enforce them. Make people pay. If you’re not going to make everyone pay, quit wasting taxpayers’ money.
    One other thought, get used to them people. With city budgets shrinking, police force is among the first to be cut. From a city administrators point of view, these cameras replace more expensive officers.

  7. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 9th, 2010 10:12 am

    Safety is definitely an issue, Roy- I agree.

    John, not only is 50 safer but does save fuel. Driving an RV or truck you’re crazy to go so fast, though there are those who roar past.

    I would think enforcement on paying tickets is fairly easy. In cities, there’s always the “boot.” Or renewal of d.l. and registration could be linked. One of the arguments for the cameras is that it does free up police to solve crimes rather than chase speeders.

    Jaimie

  8. Don Hughes on May 9th, 2010 1:02 pm

    Camera is in Chillicothe, OH were voted out my the citizens last November. Tells you that a majority of the people in this town did like or want them.

  9. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 9th, 2010 3:22 pm

    Does that surprise you, Don?! We never like law enforcement if we get caught. However, maybe safety should take precedence? In some areas I’ve been, the red-light-runners are positively dangerous. They don’t even start through the intersection until after the light has turned red. Sometimes people are killed.

    Jaimie

  10. Karl Vanhooten on May 9th, 2010 4:45 pm

    Keep the cameras. For running stop lights, too. If you’re driving the limit and obeying lights – ya got nothin’ to fear. BTW, anyone traveling 70+ mph in a 20,000+ lb. “house on wheels” is not only insane, but a moron to boot.

  11. Vicky & Bob Heron on May 9th, 2010 4:49 pm

    Thumbs down. We travel the speed limit or below. It’s scary enough on the roads today without being a speeding bullet.

    I see so many distracted and stupid drivers that it’s downright scary!!!

    If they have to go over the speed limit… they should be prepared to pay. Whatever happened to the law is the law? We were taught to RESPECT the laws and those who enforce them. I wish we could go back to that mentality.

  12. M H on May 9th, 2010 4:55 pm

    [quote]
    Karl Vanhooten on May 9th, 2010 4:45 pm
    Keep the cameras. For running stop lights, too. If you’re driving the limit and obeying lights – ya got nothin’ to fear. BTW, anyone traveling 70+ mph in a 20,000+ lb. “house on wheels” is not only insane, but a moron to boot.
    [/quote]
    What about Semi’s and Grayhound Buses?

  13. DAN on May 9th, 2010 5:20 pm

    respect for speed laws went by-by with the ridiculous 55 speed limit. respect never came back. most folks drive within the 85th percentile, so maybe that is what the speed limit should be. never mind the politicians and their money making schemes.
    the problem with red light cameras is that for the company who installs them to make money, they shorten the yellow light time. this causes more collision and rear end accidents.

  14. PeteB on May 9th, 2010 5:39 pm

    If 75 MPH is the limit then why oh good heavens allow an 11 MPH lee-way? The speed limit is either 75 or 86? No two ways about it. As the old saying goes: give anyone a foot and they’ll take a mile to time flat. Laws are there for everyone to respect and comply to: trouble starts when lee-way is allowed into the equation. As far as I am concerned, speed cameras in by themselves are nothing but a nuisance: what if someone who borrows your vehicle gets caught in the act? Who will finally pay the fine? What if you can prove you were not driving at the time of infraction?

    Regarding driving a MH above 60 MPH (tops!) is, in my book anyways, asking for trouble. And we all know what they say: be careful of what you wish for … ’cause you just might get it !

  15. butterbean carpenter on May 9th, 2010 5:52 pm

    Howdy,
    Take it from someone who has driven the trucks and buses, when the boss says “GET THERE” he means GET THERE AND THEN THEY CUT YOUR TIME… You have to go ALL OUT where you can, because you’re gonna hit slowdowns somewhere… In the past it wasn’t so bad because not everyone was going so fast
    but now they are all in a hurry and you have to stay ahead or all of them will get in front of you and then SLOW down…
    Since I’ve retired and gotten my ‘house on wheels’ and am not on a schedule I
    take my time, STAY OFF THE EISENHOWERs and enjoy the scenery I once sped
    through… It is funny how much I missed when being a commercial driver…

    As for the traffic cameras, you can’t enforce laws anymore, nobody obeys or cares, except for old folks who can remember when laws meant something…
    Legislators are all ‘criminal’ attorneys and make the laws for ‘criminals’!!!!!
    That’s why nobody cares; they just hire a ‘criminal’ lawyer to get them out of it…

  16. Thomas Becher on May 9th, 2010 6:05 pm

    The speed limit for ST tires, which is on a lot of travel trailers and fifth wheels is 65.
    Exceed it and the tire may blow out and do a lot of damage to the trailer among other things. I personally POKE along about 60 max.

  17. Kenneth Fuller on May 9th, 2010 6:09 pm

    Keep the cameras. Too many motorists drive way too fast and at 75MPH you’re covering approximately 112′ per second. If you were to maintain an adequate following distance (minimum 2-3 seconds with a car, heavy vehicles longer) you can calculate that almost every motorist is tailgating at this speed whether they realize it or not. Going faster even creates more problems of managing visibility, time and space.

    I’m confused by the mixed messages this country is sending me from the government to our environmentalists – in ‘73 the energy crisis started and they said we were going to run out of fuel; congress enacted the 55MPH speed limit to save fuel which also saved lives, but once they jacked up the price of fuel, the shortage seemed to disappear and speed limits went back up and you could drive almost as fast and burn all the fuel you wanted as long as you were willing to pay for it. Sorry about the rabbit trail – keep the cameras and cortribute the fine money to each states deficit.

  18. Alpenliter on May 9th, 2010 6:10 pm

    I don’t mind traffic cameras as long as they are acknowledged for what they are. They are revenue generators for inept state and city governments that cannot seem to live within the budgets they have established. Instead of cutting non essential services, they either raise taxes and/or find ways to generate revenue by citing safety concerns. Please. Traffic cameras at intersections in several states have actually caused more accidents from drivers slamming on their brakes to avoid getting their picture taken! It’s a cash grab, plain and simple.

  19. Dr. Robert Ackerman on May 9th, 2010 6:29 pm

    It always seem to me that the people who protest are usually the ones who violate the law. If there are notices posted that montoring devices are in operation accept the respondsibility for your own action. If I speed and I am stopped for it, I did it and I can’t blame anyone else for my action. I for one will use my cell phone to contact the State Police if someone is breaking the law. By the way I do pull over and stop if I receive or make a cell phone call, I am just not as smart as some people to have two thoughts in my head at the same time.

  20. Joe & Doris Duncan on May 9th, 2010 6:31 pm

    We are 100% in favor of speed cameras. We have been about everywhere you can go in an RV, including the 50 states, Canada, including Newfoundland and Mexico, Much of it 2 or 3 tmes. We started in 1966 and have been at it ever since. Can not count the miles we have been. Have had every kind of RV execpt a foldout. I do all of the driving and my top speed is 57 mph unless we get caught behind some slow traffic and have to pass. I may get up to 65, but I get back below 57 as soon as I can. We get up late and get on the road about 9 or 9:30 AM and drive about 250 miles and stop in time to smell the roses and do some site seeing and have a nice afternoon. I don’t understand why anyone would pay $100,000 up for an RV these days to see the country and hit the road before sun up and drive 75 & 80 mph to get to the next stop. If speed cameras would slow people down, RV or not, we are all for it. Don’t just have them, enforce the speed limit too. I also agree with the cameras at intersections for red light runners. Seems that is a real problem everywhere we go.

    This country has too much beautiful country to pass it by at 80 MPH Please slow down and don’t run over me.

  21. Judy on May 9th, 2010 6:38 pm

    I was always under the belief that the speed “limit” was just that, the max limit; not a speed that we should all strive for. Driving the big rigs that most of drive, we should all be going under that “limit”. I would much rather be safe than sorry and spend my money on others things than that ‘extra’ gas, tickets and higher insurance premiums.

  22. riggarob on May 9th, 2010 6:38 pm

    Alpenliter, the only sane comment posted! Our Govm’t has fallen into a state of disrepair. If we ran our house holds, like they run Govm’t services, we’d all be in jail. Cash grab, and then some.

  23. Walter Griffith on May 9th, 2010 6:40 pm

    I haven’t seen the speed cameras in action. Here in Central Florida we’re just getting into the “red light” cameras, which I fully support. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen drivers run thru red lights. If you’re not breaking the law why get upset over the cameras? Bring ‘em on!

  24. Constance on May 9th, 2010 6:46 pm

    More cameras, not less… We need to slow our cars, RVs and trucks down. It is much safer and saves gasoline.
    At 58-60, I find my Roadtrek gets 14 mpg and handles much better too. But, I am passed like I am standing still.

  25. riggarob on May 9th, 2010 6:46 pm

    Oh, one other thing. I’ll bet all of the professed “slow pokes”, and “camera lovers” on the forum, are retired. Just try to remember when YOU were young, and trying to get to work, pick up the kids, et al.

  26. George Wharton on May 9th, 2010 6:50 pm

    Since I don’t speed, I don’t mind traffic cameras. I would like to see cameras that could stop all the stupid people who use cell phones while they are driving.

    George

  27. TallGuy on May 9th, 2010 6:54 pm

    Y’know, speed isn’t the problem, folks. It’s the speed DIFFERENTIAL among vehicles in the same driving lanes, coupled with the abysmally lower standards for training U.S. drivers on driving techniques.

    I swear, there are more drivers out there with no more concept of driving other than to mash the long skinny pedal to go faster, and mash the wide pedal on the left to express doubt and hesitation. The little lever on the left side of the wheel, they believe, is to hang their ipod from while they are on the phone, while hanging out for miles and miles in the left lane gabbing one about important stuff like what kind of sale they will attend over the weekend, rather than notice that there are other folks on the road, too.

    We need highway patrols who are willing to spend as much time enforcing lane-changing laws, traffic obstruction laws, and driver distraction laws as they do fiddling around with someone safely going +/- 10% of the speed limit. Limits are established by elected bureaucrats, and not highway engineers. Engineers in many areas have designed roadways to accept much higher speeds than those which are posted by the various agencies. Just recently in Dallas, for example, the limit on a six lane divided highway was raised from 55 to 70 because most drivers were somehow able to safely and consistently over a number of years establish that 70 was a safe and reasonable speed for the roadway. Believe it or not, the bureaucrats’ ideas of a speed limit lost out to the common sense of the bulk of the drivers who otherwise over the years were “speeding”.

    I can safely (in select situations) pilot my teutonic sedan that was designed for unlimited speeds on the autobahn at very high speeds because of the combination of the design of machine, my training and my driver education. Likewise, I can pilot my heavy motor coach at much lower speeds, at the posted limit or below.

    Let’s recommend that the cops focus on the real morons whose excessive speed is so outstanding in relation to the reasonable flow of traffic, and also spend an equal amount of time ticketing for traffic lane blockers, lane changing without signalling, tailgating, changing lanes without reasonable clearance, failing to yield and other unsafe and ignorant driving practices.

    I’m sick of the focus on ‘just speeding’.

  28. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 9th, 2010 6:55 pm

    Great discussion! Keep ‘em coming!

    Jaimie

  29. Tireman9 on May 9th, 2010 7:48 pm

    One assumption, that is most often not based in fact, is that speed limits are based on scientific and engineering studies. It is well established fact that 85% of unregulated traffic is at a speed that is safe for the conditions.
    The other problem is the slogan “Speed Kills” which sounds reasonable but again is not based on facts.
    Inattention, Distractions, speed that is significantly above or below the 85th % number, failure to wear seat belts and numerous other factors such as cell phone use are larger contributors to highway fatalities.
    Before you complain about these statements, you need to study fatality rates on high speed roads like Interstates as compared to lower speed roads such as many state routs.

    Artifically low speed limits is one of the fastest ways for cities to generate income.
    You might visit http://www.motorists.org/ if you care to learn more.

  30. Herb Jones on May 9th, 2010 8:42 pm

    We have them here, it gives our enforcement people time to solve crimes, I love it. I may get my picture taken and would not be happy, but , lets face it I would be in the wrong!

  31. Lee Ensminger on May 9th, 2010 9:41 pm

    In my humble opinion, no one who drives within or up to the limits of our traffic laws has any reason to complain about the cameras. Each violation is reviewed on at least two different levels, one of which is a sworn officer, before any violation is issued. When I’m sitting at an intersection in Columbus, Ohio, waiting for my turn to go, seeing the light turn red followed by 4-8 cars continuing through the intersection on the red I say put cameras at EVERY intersection. And put speed cameras in various areas as well. People complain that it’s an invasion of their privacy, but that’s just a smokescreen for the real reason: They want to speed and they don’t want to stop unless they have to because some poor law-abiding schmuck is already stopped at the intersection. And by the way, in case you think I’m making this up, last year a friend was rear-ended when the light turned red, he stopped, then was rammed into by the person behind him who interpreted the red light as a signal to floor the accelerator. The idiot was stunned that the car ahead of him might actually…..stop……for a red light.

    If you’re not breaking traffic laws, you have nothing to worry about. End of story.

  32. G Shea on May 10th, 2010 12:19 am

    I live in washington and drive a bus forty hours a week. I feel speed cameras are fine since speeding is fool hardy and simple math will help speeders learn that they will not arrive any real amount of time earlier by speeding. Most RVs just burn way more fuel when speeding. The Red light cameras are fine IF the city also installs walk lights that display the seconds until the light will change. Here in lakewood washington the lights change too quickly and drivers are slamming on the brakes to avoid getting the ticket. I think they should also exempt large heavy vehicles that get trapped in these intersections and get ticketed unfairly.

  33. Don McKenzie on May 10th, 2010 2:31 am

    Basically the idea(rational) behind traffic control cameras is safety and freeing up policing hours for other things and I agree with that. BUT the implementation of the cameras is mostly cash grab.
    - The companies supplying and maintaining them are usually on a percentage or fixed pay’t per offender basis and win the contract by selling the city on how much revenue will be generated.
    -They are placed at the highest revenue producing intersections(high traffic volumes), not the most dangerous intersections.
    -They are placed on a street with a say 35mph speed limit, but the block where the camera is has the speed limit reduced to 25mph. No school zone,pedestrian crossing or whatever- just reduced. Then in the next block it returns to 35 again.
    -They are in a school zone area(good), but issue tickets at 1:00am and like hours(cash grab, not safety)
    -Same with construction zones.
    -The registered owner is deemed guilty- no choice of pleading not guilty, no avenue of appeal. We had a situation in my city where sometimes hundreds of people per day(and even per hour at times) were being ticketed in a construction zone over about a 6 month period. Finally a group of them did go to court, citing the highway traffic act that clearly stated that construction zone reduced speed limits applied WHEN workers were present. The result-1.They were found not guilty as they hadn’t broken a law, 2.the gov’t; immediately after the ruling, amended the HTA to delete the reference to workers,3.ALL the people who previously paid their fines were told that by having paid their fines, they were deemed to have pleaded guilty and could not appeal, could not benefit by the court’s ruling and could not have their fines refunded.(In spite of the fact that they had pleaded guilty to an infraction of a law which didn’t exist at the time of their charges being laid). Reason given- it would be too expensive-over $4 million split between 2 levels of gov’t and the camera supplier- was on the line and also who would pay back the part that went to the camera supplier as contract commissions. Safety was never as issue. Legal costs to mount a constitutional challenge to the local gov’ts’ arbitrary position would have exceeded each individual’s recovery potential. If each and every driver had stuck and injured or killed a construction worker at the time of their infraction, they would have had more rights to justice and been provided with resources by the gov’t. to defend themselves in court. And if they were still found guilty, Club Fed would give them 3 3star meals a day, clothing,entertainment, retraining, a university education, psychological and medical coverage,pension if over 65, support, and early parole
    But no way was anyone going to give back the approx $170. per ticket collected. That was not budgeted for. With all the publicity “ticket gate” was generating, the awareness level of the cameras went up and tickets went down. Seemed like they were working, successfully promoting increased safety, just like the supporters of cameras said they would do. So was everyone happy? No! The next thing that happened was someone leaked to the press, an internal memo from the police chief to all policemen. In it he said revenue from fines was drying up and was way under city budgeted revenue figures. Therefore ALL police(not just traffic division officers) were henceforth expected to issue at least one traffic ticket per shift. Not doing so would reflect sub par performance of duty on his(her) annual performance review by his superior. (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the chief himself who leaked it, to protest being forced into being a revenue generator instead of a public safety manager). For that moment on a great percentage of our citizens now look at cameras as cash cows, not safety devices, and respect for the law, all law, takes another hit..

  34. Ivan on May 10th, 2010 3:44 am

    I don’t feel these cameras are real effective in the long run. As a Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Florida, I can attest that they actually cause more rear-end collisions. It may seem as an effective tool to combat Red-Light Runners, but eventually a savy attorney will figure out it’s loop hole. It will just be another piece of equipment that will need to be calibrated and maintained. Good Luck to us all who share the open road.

  35. David Handler on May 10th, 2010 6:11 am

    Thumbs down, too much temptation for money making schemes. Not all cases are black and white, there are times when not running is not a choice. Have seen tickets issued locally when person was waved though by police and had to go to court, lost time, to clear ticket I also believe you should have right to confront a human accuser.

  36. Manuel Enos on May 10th, 2010 7:40 am

    I agree that cameras are for states to generate money for their local or state governments. If they can use cameras in Virginia, why is it against the law for the motorist to use a radar detector? I believe in cameras at intersections to get those who blatantly run the light causing a dangerous situation for the rest of traffic. I do not believe in big brother tactics to generate money!! As for speeders, get them cops and troopers out there doing their jobs on the highways and you will see alot of this come to an end!!

  37. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 10th, 2010 8:11 am

    Some very interesting points. I do remember seeing something in either the PHX or Tucson paper about the red light cameras and that a certain minimum of seconds had to be allowed before the signal turned red. It was generating a lot of tickets because it was impossible to stop.

    They are run by private contractors, but that’s what frees up police personnel for other tasks.

    Jaimie

  38. Geoffrey Pruett on May 10th, 2010 9:04 am

    While being tagged in the RV is going to be a surprise as normal speed is that rated for trucks. This is a more comfortable ride on most of the nations deteriorating roads and less stress on long runs.
    That said I am strongly against ticket issuing unmanned radar traps, not the manned ones, just unmanned. Most are not up for safety but for revenue. Many speed traps are needed at times to break bad habits as areas change, but the faceless traps fail at this.
    Have spent my working life working with systems such as these and what is in use now is very accurate, the flaw in the system is the installers. Those actually being handled by local traffic safety personel will be handled well, those put up by the area councils for profit will be suspect and too well isolated from the decision makers. This is a problem in the making.

  39. Chris Savard on May 10th, 2010 10:31 am

    Those cameras are not always the best. A family member got a ticket and the light had just turned yellow when they were already in the intersection. The authorities showed her a video of the light as red!!! I was with them and can verify that it was yellow when they started through the intersection. We later found out that the camera was behind the car taking the picture after they went through the light giving the impression that they ran the red light. Now had they slammed on the brake for the yellow light they would have stopped in the middle of the intersection. Would that have been safe? Definately not. They had 2 small babies(twins) in the car as well!! I highly disapprove of them. I think they are unconstitutional. Spying on people. When will this start in our homes????

  40. jerry on May 10th, 2010 10:56 am

    I’m totally in favor of traffic lite cameras. Too many idiots are color blind, or too important to stop…………………….Happy motoring

  41. Gail Clark on May 10th, 2010 2:58 pm

    I’ve yet decided wether I like the cameras or not. Here in Colier County, FL we have some at intersections. You get to know which intersection. I did get a ticket beause I did not wait the full 5 seconds on taking a right on red. My biggest fear of these cameras is that BIG BROTHER IS WATCHIGN YOU

  42. riggarob on May 10th, 2010 4:17 pm

    Did anyone, besides myself, actually read “Tireman9″s post, and click on the link for further depressing news? This goes way beyond “big bro”!

    Artifically low speed limits is one of the fastest ways for cities to generate income.
    You might visit http://www.motorists.org/ if you care to learn more.

  43. Steve on May 10th, 2010 5:40 pm

    In AZ the speeding or red ligt violation is sent to the registered owner. But, since it is not “served” to the driver, it is only a notice that a summons could be issued. So…They are not going to hire a “skip trace” investigator to find you, if your address is not current; They can not serve you are from another state; In fact, if you have a foreign plate (There’s a lot of Mex plates here.) They can’t even get your name or address.

    Thus, the violation only has teeth, if it is convenient for the state.

  44. Bob Winsor on May 10th, 2010 5:58 pm

    I think they are against the constitution. The constitution provides that a person has the right to be confronted by their accuser in a court of law. And how can the camera come in and testify?

    Minneapolis had a legal challenge to their stop light camera program and they lost big time: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp

    I don’t care for speeders and stop light runners. But, I don’t think a electro mechanical device sould be taking the place of a well trained law officer.

  45. Ed on May 12th, 2010 1:02 pm

    The speed cameras give you a good amount of warning and 11 mph cushion I think they are a good thing. The red light cameras are another thing.The speed limit in Tucson is to high (40/45 mph) on some streets and they say the light stays yellow for 3 seconds. Many have been recorded at 2.7 to 2.8 seconds if the light turns red before you pass the part of curbing that starts to curve the light flashes and you get your ticket in the mail. Many people have been fighting it at 1 intersection the yellow light was only for 2.5 seconds. They fixed that 1 but I just read it is one of the 2.8 second lights. Local police say that people are using stop watches and their thumb is to fast.
    I go another way when I need to go to Tucson Or I go slow expecting the light to change and always ready to stop. If the person behind you was planning on making the light you get a free paint job, unless they are uninsured.

  46. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 12th, 2010 2:37 pm

    Hmm… very interesting points. I think a lot of people are torn between wanting safety yet seeing the limitations of the equipment (and contract operators)- especially when it comes to red light enforcement. And, riggarob – you are probably right- most of us aren’t in a hurry anymore. I have definitely slowed down!

    Jaimie

  47. GaryM on May 12th, 2010 6:39 pm

    Consider this… If the speed limit is 65, you can go 75 to pass the vehicle in front of you if that vehicle is going less than the speed limit on a two lane highway. If you are driving on a freeway or a two lane with passing lanes, you can only do the speed limit to pass.
    In addition, red lights mean stop, regardless if they are on a traffic light or a school bus. Orange or yellow lights mean slow down, use caution and prepare to stop (especially in the case of a school bus). Proceed when the light is green or there are no lights (school bus.)
    I say give the Highway Patrol and other peace officers a break and follow the rules. The life you endanger the most is your own but there are lots of folks that you could put in jeopardy as well. We try to teach our children to follow the rules but then we show them by our actions that there are reasons why we don’t have to. They see that…
    Do you suppose if we slow down, enjoy the world around us, the need for traffic cops or cameras would be less and the cost of cleaning up accidents caused by unsafe drivers would be less. Those tasked with keeping us safe from the bad guys would have the time and funding to do it much easier.

  48. Bill Shuster on May 22nd, 2010 3:11 pm

    Short and sweet! More cameras around our country means more intrusion in our privacy, loss of our God giver rights. “BIG BROTHER is watching!
    Speed limits are meant for safety,period. You break the law, you pay the price, either a ticket or an accident. Too bad a legal driver is probably the looser, life and or property.
    SLOW DOWN and see the roses, you might even stop to smell them!

  49. Bill on May 31st, 2010 1:53 pm

    I believe that speed cameras and stop light cameras enhance safety. Now that I have said that, I also have to comment on the little town of Heath, Ohio that put them in and then changed the yellow light time from 8 seconds to 4 seconds. That had nothing to do with safety…it was all about money.

    My main objection is that the cameras are owned and run by a private firm. I believe it is government’s job to enforce the laws, not private companies. Next they’ll want to disband the police department and outsource “law enforcement” to the lowest bidder.

    By the way, in the last election both the cameras and the mayor were voted out in Heath, Ohio.

  50. Jaimie Hall Bruzenak on May 31st, 2010 7:31 pm

    A big criticism of the red light cameras is that the time for the yellow light is shortened to an impossible amount. In AZ they did pass a law requiring a minimum amount for the yellow.

    A friend to a red-light violation ticket. In his case there was a photo of both the front and the rear of the car showing it not in the “safe” zone, which meant he had gone through too late. He said a friend was yelling at him to “turn left” so he did without checking that carefully.

    Jaimie

  51. Kenneth Lane on October 27th, 2010 2:07 am

    Speeding is morally wrong, photo capture devices are OK as long as they are carefully verified and well maintained.
    The yellow time span must be fair based on the speed the area is set to maintain.

    Cell phone usage is more of a problem than speeding, stop and pull to safety before using cell phones. Should be fined at the reckless driving level it is!

  52. עיצוב גינות on June 27th, 2012 7:36 am

    … [Trackback] …

    [...] Informations on that Topic: blog.rv.net/2010/05/traffic-speed-cameras-yea-or-nay/ [...] …

Bottom