Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Twolanerider]

From a story on the AP wire today.  Not a done deal yet.  But would have expected this more on the east coast somewhere than a western state.




Arizona budget banking on speeders By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 19, 6:57 AM ET
 


Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano says the deployment of new photo radar or other speed enforcement technology on state highways is all about public safety. But her proposed state budget counts on the anticipated speeding fines to help erase a projected revenue shortfall.

The proposal, submitted to the Legislature late Friday, anticipates $120 million in revenue the first year, including $90 million in net income after expenses from the statewide effort. Even bigger dollar amounts are expected in future years.

The state faces a projected revenue shortfall of at least $1.2 billion in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

While some states use photo radar and similar technology on a limited basis in areas such as construction zones, experts said Arizona is in the vanguard of moving toward a widespread deployment of speed technology on highways.

"It wasn't designated primarily for revenue generation but since we have it (and) it works, we want to move statewide," Napolitano said. "We made that decision before the whole budget issue arose. Now we take advantage of it and use it for law enforcement highway safety purposes."

The governor's budget aides said Friday they could not immediately provide details on assumptions used to project the revenue estimate, including the numbers of expected violations.

Napolitano's plan needs approval by the Republican-led Legislature, and one key lawmaker expressed immediate opposition.

"I don't know whether Arizonans want to be policed by cameras," said Senate Transportation Chairman Ron Gould, adding that he plans legislation to require that voters decide the issue. "It smacks of Big Brother to me."

Proposals calling for even limited use of cameras have run into opposition in some states.

Maryland's transportation secretary on Tuesday told lawmakers that cameras in highway work zones would improve worker safety and reduce accidents, but lawmakers raised concerns on privacy, effectiveness and motive.

Arizona Automobile Association spokeswoman Linda Gorman said the 750,000-member group representing drivers supports photo radar as a way to improve traffic safety but not to help balance the state budget.

A year ago, Napolitano cited results from suburban Scottsdale's use of fixed cameras on a stretch of state freeway when she directed the state Department of Public Safety to begin researching the possible use of new speed enforcement devices.

An Arizona State University professor who studied the Scottsdale project found that it reduced speeding and accident rates. That system uses sensors embedded in the freeway to trigger cameras that snap photos of speeding vehicles. Motor vehicle records are checked to find the vehicles' owners, ultimately leading to citations for identified drivers.

[Hoist!]

Here we go! They don't even GAS about safety or saving lives, or even pretend that they do. The whole thing's about revenue! Throw the constitution out the window. We want more revenue!!! What a buncha BS!!! Damn liberals!!! I hope that Rep Legislature puts her in her place!!!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

That's right Howie.  Just what the west needed.  Janet Napolitano was just another damned New Yorker !

Her transplant was a long time ago though.  Though in the interim I remember a "highlight" of her public career was being Anita Hill's attorney .

[VAZHOG]

Gotta pay for the mexican free health care and welfare, That's why they come to AZ it's one of the first states on the GRAVY TRAIN.

[Hoist!]

That's right Howie.  Just what the west needed.  Janet Napolitano was just another damned New Yorker !

Her transplant was a long time ago though.  Though in the interim I remember a "highlight" of her public career was being Anita Hill's attorney .

Castro's getting ready to kick! She should go down there, take Hillary with her, and wreak havoc on those poor people. They'll never notice!

Hoist!

[Screamin]

"It wasn't designated primarily for revenue generation but since we have it (and) it works, we want to move statewide," Napolitano said. "We made that decision before the whole budget issue arose. Now we take advantage of it and use it for law enforcement highway safety purposes."

Volumes spoken.
                                It sucks and is wrong.

[BT]

They thought it would work here and generate revenue but.................

Victoria - British Columbia plans to sell the 30 photo-radar cameras it bought for $3 million in the mid-1990s for next to nothing.

The cameras were acquired with high hopes that they would lead to safer highways and a windfall of easy revenue for the province. But the program was a political football from the start, implemented so timidly it never stood a chance of succeeding.

The Liberal government, elected on a promise to kill it, kept its word, but admits it may bet as little as 30 cents on the dollar on the purchase price. Some estimates run as low as five cents on the dollar.

Photo-radar began in 1996 but never succeeded because of a mixture of political and public opposition. Experts say the province would have needed 80 cameras and serious enforcement to make photo-radar work effectively.

Australia, where photo-radar was pioneered, warned that the province would fail without serious enforcement, especially in densely populated areas, over long hours each day. In practice, the cameras were often used five hours a day, or less, and the public never reached the point where drivers developed an ongoing fear of being caught.

Revenues fell far short of the $60-million annual operating cost of the program and the sale price of the cameras will only add to the loss. But this is one failed government program the public is unlikely to complain about.

[Twolanerider]

Volumes spoken.
                                It sucks and is wrong.

Have to admit to being a hypocrite and torn on this one.  I don't want traffic enforcement to be robotic and automatic.  Even if I always drove within the speed limit I'd not want enforcement to be entirely mechanized.

I can make (and believe them when I say them) both valid and resonant (even when they're not the same things) arguments about privacy, systems issues, etc etc etc.  Can wander on and speak to the need in a society like ours for enforcement to be a human endeavor and carry that on to debates about facing one's accuser and a camera not being "someone" that can be challenged but merely evidence presented by no one.

But yet....  If someone were going to be doing something evil to me or someone I knew and a camera could help a police keep that from happening I'd be saying "pull off the lens cap" and fire away.

Driving is a very human endeavor to many of us.  Perhaps more so in a crowd like this than others.  Some give and take "feels" like it must be part of the process.  Mechanized, automatic, boring enforcement seems only a step closer to other things becoming even more automatic (and boring and banal). 

So, no; I definitely positively absolutely and resolutely do not want some damned automatic camera based enforcement system that can without forethought or intent of any kind ring me up for speeding without even having the nerve to pull me over and hand me the ticket.  If that same camera, however, can help highlight and stop the drunk before he rams me a half hour later than that's one fine piece of technology.

[Twolanerider]

Australia, where photo-radar was pioneered, warned that the province would fail without serious enforcement, especially in densely populated areas, over long hours each day. In practice, the cameras were often used five hours a day, or less, and the public never reached the point where drivers developed an ongoing fear of being caught.

That is definitely part of the both implementations question and political debate.  Study are study suggests these systems have to basically be turned on and let run to really have an impact on traffic behavior.  They have to be almost automatic and all but sure.  Otherwise if you don't see its red lights flashing its hard to worry about it.  So even though some jurisdictions have had the stones to bring the systems there's been little follow through in the US to using them to such a degree that they're actually deterrent.

Scot or others could no doubt speak to this from a professional and applications perspective much more accurately.  But from a political perspective where some of the things I've read come from or are prepared for their issue is being willing to get them to begin with then not having the stones to stand by their conviction and get them in numbers and employed with hours in use to to what they hoped to do with them.

[CVOJOE]

anticipates $120 million in revenue the first year, including $90 million in net income after expenses from the statewide effort. Even bigger dollar amounts are expected in future years.

Do you think it's really about REVENUE for the state, surely they have public safety as their first priority right?    Someone with enough $'s will take this to court and hopefully get these things pulled. When contractors have a incentive/bonus for the number of tickets issed by their equipment, it does not sit well in the courts.

[grc]

IF the system could be foolproofed to eliminate false readings, and IF the law required visual I.D. of the driver and not just the vehicle, and IF the actual speed limits were based on scientific principles rather than a desire to generate revenue (just love those sudden 20 mph reductions in speed limit with a radar car right after the only sign), PERHAPS I could support the system in certain areas.  There are plenty of highways in the Chicago metro area where enforcement of the 55 limit is nonexistent and the real average speed is closer to 80-85.  Due to traffic volumes, enforcement by single patrol cars is problematic at best, and those who are ticketed tend to be the least guilty.  Ever been on the tail end of a string of cars running over the limit, and you are the only one that get's pulled over?

Make the system fair for everyone, base the limits on scientific principles, and make the existence and placement of the cameras public knowledge.  MAYBE then the public could learn to accept it.

Jerry

[VaEagle]

The only true public safety benefit to speed or redlight cameras is in the fact that law enforcement officers will not be shot or injured in an accident due to a traffic stop to issue the violation.
Just speed alone is not the most dangerous factor in accidents. It definitely is a contributing factor but reckless driving and inattention plays a very large part in accidents.
The general public needs to take driving more seriously and disconnect themselves from the cell phones, ipods and in some cases video players etc. They are supposed to be in control of the vehicle which is deadly force and needs to be respected as such.
Taking a picture of a violator and sending a violation days or weeks later did not make the folks on the road that day any safer. Maybe in the future it will if the driver wakes up and fears loosing his license or insurance costs get too high.
The down side of no officer making the traffic stop is he may miss a wanted individual since he was not there to arrest that person. The driver as well as not being able to face his accuser at the time of the violation can not offer a valid excuse for the speed or light violation which an officer could excuse but the camera may not catch the full picture. EX. redlight cameras cause the rear end accidents to increase because someone slams on the brakes to avoid running the light and the driver behind doesn't stop in time.
Then many areas have used private companies to administer and collect fines for the localities. Possibilities for tampering or corruption exist when you get more people involved in money collection.

[CVOJOE]

The only true public safety benefit to speed or redlight cameras is in the fact that law enforcement officers will not be shot or injured in an accident due to a traffic stop to issue the violation.
Just speed alone is not the most dangerous factor in accidents. It definitely is a contributing factor but reckless driving and inattention plays a very large part in accidents.
The general public needs to take driving more seriously and disconnect themselves from the cell phones, ipods and in some cases video players etc. They are supposed to be in control of the vehicle which is deadly force and needs to be respected as such.
Taking a picture of a violator and sending a violation days or weeks later did not make the folks on the road that day any safer. Maybe in the future it will if the driver wakes up and fears loosing his license or insurance costs get too high.
The down side of no officer making the traffic stop is he may miss a wanted individual since he was not there to arrest that person. The driver as well as not being able to face his accuser at the time of the violation can not offer a valid excuse for the speed or light violation which an officer could excuse but the camera may not catch the full picture. EX. redlight cameras cause the rear end accidents to increase because someone slams on the brakes to avoid running the light and the driver behind doesn't stop in time.
Then many areas have used private companies to administer and collect fines for the localities. Possibilities for tampering or corruption exist when you get more people involved in money collection.

That sums it perfectly..thus endth the lesson ..........as Sir Hubbard would proudly proclaim. 

[Talon]

Below is a picture I pulled off the net a while back, it's suppose to be a new radar built into a guard rail, not sure if there a camera in there, or if they get you down the road away. There wasn't much info.

[Talon]

The only true public safety benefit to speed or redlight cameras is in the fact that law enforcement officers will not be shot or injured in an accident due to a traffic stop to issue the violation.
Just speed alone is not the most dangerous factor in accidents. It definitely is a contributing factor but reckless driving and inattention plays a very large part in accidents.
The general public needs to take driving more seriously and disconnect themselves from the cell phones, ipods and in some cases video players etc. They are supposed to be in control of the vehicle which is deadly force and needs to be respected as such.
Taking a picture of a violator and sending a violation days or weeks later did not make the folks on the road that day any safer. Maybe in the future it will if the driver wakes up and fears loosing his license or insurance costs get too high.
The down side of no officer making the traffic stop is he may miss a wanted individual since he was not there to arrest that person. The driver as well as not being able to face his accuser at the time of the violation can not offer a valid excuse for the speed or light violation which an officer could excuse but the camera may not catch the full picture. EX. redlight cameras cause the rear end accidents to increase because someone slams on the brakes to avoid running the light and the driver behind doesn't stop in time.
Then many areas have used private companies to administer and collect fines for the localities. Possibilities for tampering or corruption exist when you get more people involved in money collection.

I agree with most of what you said, but I can't stand the amount of people that run red lights just to save a minute or two sitting at a light, especially as a bike rider. Your suppose to be in control of you vehicle and leave adequate distance between vehicles to stop without running into the guy in front of you!   

There are many outs for camera tickets, we have them here, they send you a ticket with the picture of you doing what ever, you are able to just send it back stating that several people drive your car and it wasn't you driving. This happened with my daughter, the car she was driving was registered to my wife, so she got the ticket, she just sent it back saying it wasn't her driving, and the ticket was dropped. She didn't say anything about who it was!