OT: Speed Cams

[Vaughn Treude]

Can't resist getting in on this one!
:=)

der.hans wrote:
> Am 02. Apr, 2009 schwätzte Josef Lowder so:
>
>> On 4/1/09, Bryan O'Neal <boneal at cornerstonehome.com> wrote:
>>> I have no issue with red-light cameras, if they provide a yellow 
>>> light of
>>> adequate length to safely stop after noticing the light change, say 
>>> 5 or 6
>>> seconds.  As for the speed cameras, well, I am agenst speed limits and
>>> believe it should be safe and prudent as seen by an officer and 
>>> confirmed by
>>> a judge. As for the cameras in particular, no one has been able to make
>>> public a report showing they do anything other then annoy drivers. 
>>> Accidents
>>> have not gone down ...
>>
>> Photo radar saves lives.  Period.
>
> No. Photo radar is a cash cow for the government and a company in
> Scottsdale.
>
>> According to the Arizona State Department of Public Safety, because 
>> of photo
>> radar, crashes are down by 12%, injuries have been cut by 17%, and 
>> fatality
>> collisions are down by 29% on Phoenix-area highways.
>
> DPS came out with its study stating that photo radar had reduced
> accidents, but in the same announcement had to admit the study hadn't
> taken into account that there might've been reductions in the traffic
> due to the cost of gas ( the study was done during the height of the gas
> prices ) or due to people being unemployed and no longer on the road or
> any other reason. It was acknowledged that traffic known to be was down,
> but that wasn't considered as a potential reason for the reduction in
> accidentѕ.

Don't forget that Arizona recently enacted a much tougher drunk-driving 
law. Although I have issues with the way it's being enforced, I think 
that such laws have had an impact in the past and this one is probably 
doing so now. I'll wager that in the past, a lot of freeway crashes have 
been caused by drunk twenty-somethings opening it up when they hit the 
highway at 2 AM. But the media deliberately obscures these and other 
factors.

Just one example (not an effort to get the discussion further afield) 
When they made drugstores put their sudafed supplies under the counter, 
they claimed it was reducing the number of meth labs. Nonsense! They 
never tell you hat the Mexican drug cartels have made the drug cheap 
enough so American tweekers don't need to make their own.
>
> It's a bogus study. Heck, it starts off with "Speeding is recognized as
> one of the most important factors causing traffic accidents.", so it's
> not even trying to appear to be a neutral study. Photo radar has been
> around for decades in various forms. And yet, there is only one study
> touting photo radar's benefits and that study is biased, prejudiced and
> compromised?
>
> Ha, ha. Douglas Adams makes an appearance since the speed enforcement
> program is abbreviated as SEP. I think that explains how the government
> has been able to get away with the improper relationship of having a
> private company get bribed to do law enforcement.
>
>> No clear-thinking person would want to eliminate photo radar simply 
>> because
>> of their personal desire to want to disregard and disobey highway 
>> speed laws.
>
> I want photo radar eliminated because I'm opposed to big brother[0],
> illegal business contracts, allowing companies to masquerade as law
> enforcement, artificially dangerous road conditions[1], and Dukes of
> Hazzard style changing of speed limits in order to ambush people with the
> cameras[2].
>

Hear, hear! I'll go further - most people don't understand how the 
checks and balances between government and the people work. In many 
cases, oppressive laws don't get passed because the politicians know 
they're not enforceable. In other cases- alcohol prohibition, the 
military draft, the 55 MPH national speed limit, and Arizona's archaic 
"sodomy" laws, just to name a few- policies were reversed because of 
widespread refusal to comply. Giving the government more surveillance 
powers removes this check. We'll see states and cities piling on all 
sorts of laws in the name of health, safety, morality, the environment, 
and political correctness. Even if the laws accomplish little or nothing 
positive, they'll have a constituency to support them (cops, jails, 
prison guards, etc.) and there'll be nothing we can do about it.

Vaughn

> In any case, there's a ballot initiative where we can partially vote them
> out.
>
> http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/131797
>
> http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Citizens_Against_Photo_Radar_(2010) 
>
>
> http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/
>
> [0] There are reports that the cameras are also taking HD video all the
> time.
>
> [1] The photo radar flashes can cause a white out effect on the driver
> when they go off. This is a huge problem for motorcyclists as it blinds
> them for a second and worse blinds the car drivers near them[3]. I have
> even had my cabin white out due to a photo radar flash at dusk while I
> was on an access ramp waiting to get on the freeway. My eyes are just
> fine. Photo radar flashes are unsafe.
>
> [2] Phoenix seems to be getting better about this by actually posting the
> speed limit changes far enough in front of the cameras to actually read
> the new numbers before getting to the cameras. Tempe, however, appears to
> be changing signs to lower speed limits :(. For months there was photo
> radar after freeway interchanges where the speed limit had changed, but
> there was no sign to indicate the change.
>
> [3] Getting blinded as you're legally turning left after a yellow on a
> motorcycle sucks. Period.
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
>   



> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss