| Radars [message #791837] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 05:40 |
|
I think the statistics probably do back up the fact that the number of
speeders is reduced when they know the camera's are watching.
http://www.arizonaautoinsurance.cc
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #791846 ] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 06:33 |
|
:
> I think the statistics probably do back up the fact that the number of
> speeders is reduced when they know the camera's are watching.
> http://www.arizonaautoinsurance.cc
That's when the speed limits get lowered to generate more tickets.
Who are you anyways, a shill for the insurance industry?
--
"I always heard that primitave hoo-mans lacked intelligence,
but I never thought they'd be this stupid."
--Quark
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #791862 ] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 17:15 |
|
ChoiceArizona [at] gmail.com wrote in news:66364592-777c-43f1-8d90-
23579c814e6d [at] c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> I think the statistics probably do back up the fact that the number of
> speeders is reduced when they know the camera's are watching.
> http://www.arizonaautoinsurance.cc
that doesn't mean those roads are any safer.
It might make things WORSE,by bunching up traffic,reducing traffic flow.
It seems that's the case everywhere I've seen speed enforcement operate.
They choose places to enforce where speed matters the least.
And all other more dangerous infractions go UNenforced.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #791912 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 02:34 |
|
Interesting timing; Arizona plans to greatly expand its deployment of
speed cameras, hoping to install 100 statewide beginning this summer.
The effort is officially being cast in safety terms, but there seems
little pretense that the money wouldn't be welcome. (The size of
the FY08 and FY09 budget shortfalls, and what to do about them, have
apparently become very controversial issues there.) They are
guesstimating $90 million of income on $124 million of revenue the
first year. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0118budget0118radar-O NL.html
Whether that will go down over time, and if so whether that reflects
a decrease in speeding or just a savvier speeder, are interesting
questions. I happened to be taking a business trip to Phoenix about
the time the first cameras on the 101 Loop between Cave Creek and
Scottsdale were coming online. Those initial installations were
fixed and rather prominent -- in fact, there was something of a
publicity campaign. Unless they have been augmented with stealthier
units, they're probably just weeding out the oblivious speeders (hmm,
no quarrel with *that*) and the odd visitor, while local leadfoots
bringing their "A" game would learn when and where to slow down.
--Joe
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #791913 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 02:49 |
|
Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
>Interesting timing; Arizona plans to greatly expand its deployment of
>speed cameras, hoping to install 100 statewide beginning this summer.
>The effort is officially being cast in safety terms, but there seems
>little pretense that the money wouldn't be welcome. (The size of
>the FY08 and FY09 budget shortfalls, and what to do about them, have
>apparently become very controversial issues there.) They are
>guesstimating $90 million of income on $124 million of revenue the
>first year. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0118budget0118radar-O NL.html
>
>Whether that will go down over time, and if so whether that reflects
>a decrease in speeding or just a savvier speeder, are interesting
>questions. I happened to be taking a business trip to Phoenix about
>the time the first cameras on the 101 Loop between Cave Creek and
>Scottsdale were coming online. Those initial installations were
>fixed and rather prominent -- in fact, there was something of a
>publicity campaign. Unless they have been augmented with stealthier
>units, they're probably just weeding out the oblivious speeders (hmm,
>no quarrel with *that*) and the odd visitor, while local leadfoots
>bringing their "A" game would learn when and where to slow down.
Some enterprising geek might make some jack were they to develop a web
site that contain the geographical coordinates for each camera
nationwide, then charge users for downloading that content to their
GPS receivers.
--
Sarcasm is my sword
Apathy is my shield
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #791936 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 04:18 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #792006 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 19:38 |
|
> I wonder how much of that windfall will be offset by the loss of
> tourism income? I certainly won't be visiting any area where these
> things are deployed...
I'm guessing that it isn't much of a factor for most tourists in
choosing a destination. (If they twig to it at all. Remember that
people who would read a newsgroup about cars and driving are probably
somewhere high in the 90th percentile in awareness of such things --
probably a lot of people's first inkling of the existence of photo
radar would come in the form of a ticket and nastygram from a rental
car company). Business travelers, of course, often don't even have
much choice in where or whether to go.
The other question is where all these cameras will be deployed, which
I don't know. Arizona sits astride the efficient routes between much
of California and much of the rest of the country. If they choose to
pluck the bird of passage, they certainly have the location.
How the photo cameras interact with the state's "criminal speeding"
statute, which I think (warning: double whammy of legal layman
working from memory) is that 20+ mph over the limit can be treated as
a criminal offense rather than an infraction, I do not know.
--Joe
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #792034 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:11 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Radars [message #792093 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 20:01 |
|
> Let me ask that a different way: if you were visiting a place, and you
> got nailed by one of these things, would you go back? Or would you
> drive away screaming, and TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS what happened and
> recommend that they go somewhere else on their next vacation?
I'm just not so sure this would have a noticeable effect in a
population of, what, coming around the clubhouse turn on 300 million?
Besides, a lot of one's friends would secretly (or not so secretly)
think "why are you getting so cranked up about a speeding ticket?" --
or "Obey the speed limit and that won't happen anymore."
If the state or some municipalities work it too hard (say, writing a
blizzard of tickets, and/or huge tickets, for small or arguable
increments of speed), they might get a speed-trap reputation that
influences people. Word of mouth from individuals who got caught with
their hand in the cookie jar... hmm. Could be wrong, but I'm guessing
that only local/state voters can exert real influence... and some of
them might be in favor of the program.
And at the end of the day it'll still have, for instance, the only
Grand Canyon we've got, not to mention critical stretches of the only
I-40, I-10, and I-8 we've got.
--Joe
|
|
|
