The photo vans take the drivers picture as well as the vehicles license plate. If the picture isn't good enough to identify the driver or if someone other than the driver is photographed, the owner isn't required to pay the fine.
Arizona designated "Strict Enforcement" state by AAA
- Thread starter Gary RV_Wizard
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Betty Brewer
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Posts
- 4,778
Lowell said:
A family member recently attended a funeral in Mesa, AZ and was captured on the photo for speeding. He received a ticket by mail at his home. However he lives in Utah, has car registered in Utah, Utah DL and learned that the photo ticket must be delivered in person, not by mail. So he was able to "get out" of the $285.00 ticket. Not that I condone speeding, just that there are many facets to enforcement.
Betty
Mike and Sherrie in VA
Well-known member
Lowell said:
That's what bothers me to some extent. No need to show your travel papers to the communist government in the Soviet Block when the good ol' USA can just snapshot and track everyone anyway. What's to say that the photo cameras aren't watching everyone constantly and only issue a ticket if they were driving too fast?
The brits seem to have warmed to the idea but for me, I don't think the gov't should be able to track my whereabouts without a warrant.
A cell phone permits similar tracking but only to 911 service unless you specifically turn on full-time tracking. But, who is making the judgement call?
Maybe some will think that I am just paraniod, but I work in tech and know what technology can do in unscupulous hands. I'm not anti-gov't but I am aware that the tendencies of gov't thoughout history are generally to abuse power, and automated photography of traffic on our highways is a VERY powerful tool.
ArdraF
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Posts
- 10,695
Lowell,
Kind of like they ignore the speed limit signs. Las Vegas tried to install the traffic cameras about a year ago to catch the flagrant red light runners, but the "rights" people got all upset so they stopped the cameras. Too bad. The fact that L.V. has the highest rate of red light runner fatalities in the U.S. is irrelevant I guess! It also has the highest rate of fatalities of single vehicle accidents AND the highest rate of fatalities because they don't wear seatbelts and get thrown from their cars. One of the latter was someone we knew.
ArdraF
Mike and Sherrie in VA
Well-known member
ArdraF said:
If you choose not to wear a seatbelt that should be your own decision. Maybe the insurance company should deny coverage for an injury in such a case. I have friends who refuse to wear one, but I believe it is a personal choice and I don't feel *right* without a seatbelt. BUT, is a seatbelt LAW necessary? In that case we can theoretically dictacte that nobody eats bacon because of the fat content. Might as well close all the fast-food franchises while we are at it (sarcasm involved).
Ron
Moderator Emeritus
Personally I have no objections to worthwhile laws that will protect the public such as speed and light cameras. I have no issue with speed cameras or light cameras and personally I think it should be a requirement nation wide.
Mike and Sherrie in VA said:
I don't think you are paranoid, but also think people are fed up with the number of maniacs on the roads in certain states and regions. The problem only gets worse without enforcement, and unfortunately, most jurisdictions simply don't have the money for more LEOs and this is a cheaper (usually net cash flow positive) alternative.
From my perspective, driving on public roads is a privilege, not an entitlement. If it were up to me, the requirement for just getting a license would be so cumbersome and stringent that half the drivers in the U.S. would not be able to obtain a license (like Germany). Flagrant violations would get your license pulled and the penalty for a DUI or driving without a license would be a mandatory 3 year stint in the armed services or equivalent public civil service or jail, your choice.
Mike and Sherrie in VA
Well-known member
Ron said:
I am saying that I disagree with some opposing views that have been presented.
I am going to bow out of the discussion because it is becoming political and I think that is inappropriate for this forum. Part of the politicizing is perhaps related to my recent posts and for that I apologize.
Beyond that, I am offended by the "don't you just hate the rights folks" comment. I think it IS appropriate to defend my rights. I drive safely and cautiously but I don't need big brother to monitor me every mile to ensure that I don't slip up, lest the state miss out on a fiscal jackpot.
So maybe someone else should reflect for a moment and consider dropping the subject as well. I've nothing else to offer in this thread.
If I understand correctly, the photo cameras are taking pictures all the time, even if no one is speeding. The person in the van triggers the flash when someone is speeding. The guy that shot the person in the photo van was captured on video but without the flash because he wasn't speeding. The video identified his vehicle, not him or his license plate. But his vehicle, a suburban with a odd rack and tire mounted on top was unique. A police officer recalled seeing that vehicle in his neighborhood and the police found it quite quickly. In this case it was a good thing.
Suppose someone gets kidnapped and they identify the kidnappers vehicle. Could the police do a scan of all the photo vans' video to see which way they went and who was driving? I would be OK with that.
But if the vans take pictures continusly, can the video be used for other than legal purposes too? How are the video's controlled? Who has access to them? Those are some concerns of mine too.
Suppose someone gets kidnapped and they identify the kidnappers vehicle. Could the police do a scan of all the photo vans' video to see which way they went and who was driving? I would be OK with that.
But if the vans take pictures continusly, can the video be used for other than legal purposes too? How are the video's controlled? Who has access to them? Those are some concerns of mine too.
I actually feel like this has been a rational and healthy debate. 
IMO, to discuss these issues in a public forum is constructive and is a civic responsibility for diligent citizens of a democracy. I enjoy hearing the alternative view points, even when they differ from my own.
We are never all going to agree, but certainly I prefer to know and understand different perspectives than to ignore them. Knowledge and understanding breeds tolerance for different views, which this country seems a bit short on lately.
Happy Friday everyone...drive safe.
IMO, to discuss these issues in a public forum is constructive and is a civic responsibility for diligent citizens of a democracy. I enjoy hearing the alternative view points, even when they differ from my own.
We are never all going to agree, but certainly I prefer to know and understand different perspectives than to ignore them. Knowledge and understanding breeds tolerance for different views, which this country seems a bit short on lately.
Happy Friday everyone...drive safe.
Smoky
Well-known member
Mike and Sherry:
You might be a safe driver and I respect you don;t like Big Brother watching you drive safely.
But something you should reflect upon.
there are LOTS, and I mean REALLY LOTS of very dangerous drivers out there. Some of the nicest people completely change their identities when they get behind the wheel. And they kill thousands of people. I mean kill them. Just as bad as if they had a gun. And many of them get off scott free.
We would live in an anarchy if we did not have some invasions of privacy. Not everyone is like you.
I admit my views began changing after I started driving a big rig. But now, after what I have seen in 4 years, makes me very unsympathetic to anyone who objects to strictly enforced traffic laws.
And I agree once again with Mc2Guy that this is a very appropriate discussion on an RV forum. I don't feel political about it. But I feel very serious about it.
You might be a safe driver and I respect you don;t like Big Brother watching you drive safely.
But something you should reflect upon.
there are LOTS, and I mean REALLY LOTS of very dangerous drivers out there. Some of the nicest people completely change their identities when they get behind the wheel. And they kill thousands of people. I mean kill them. Just as bad as if they had a gun. And many of them get off scott free.
We would live in an anarchy if we did not have some invasions of privacy. Not everyone is like you.
I admit my views began changing after I started driving a big rig. But now, after what I have seen in 4 years, makes me very unsympathetic to anyone who objects to strictly enforced traffic laws.
And I agree once again with Mc2Guy that this is a very appropriate discussion on an RV forum. I don't feel political about it. But I feel very serious about it.
Mike and Sherrie in VA
Well-known member
Smoky, my objection is not to the fact that enforcement is being performed. My objection is to the use of automated systems which WILL ALWAYS fail in some way, shape or form. I agree, there are many dangerous drivers and rarely does a day go by when I think to myself that I wish a police officer saw what I just saw someone do on the road.
I personally feel that people talking on cell phones are the biggest threat today.
Sherrie is a volunteer EMT with a rescue sqaud in VA and has litelrlly picked up body parts after accidents caused by irresponsible behavior and excessive speed, so we are well aware of the potential problems in that regard.
My reason for abandoning the topic (and I would have but thought your and Mc2Guy's posts were thoughtful and deserving of acknowledgement and response) is that a statement was made by another poster who began personally insulting me (IMHO) with his statement of "hating" people who like I believe in our rights and stand up for them. I've yet to see an apology for the percieved slight or clarification of the intent of the statement, and I chose to abandon the thread at that time rather than escalating when I was upset.
I personally feel that people talking on cell phones are the biggest threat today.
Sherrie is a volunteer EMT with a rescue sqaud in VA and has litelrlly picked up body parts after accidents caused by irresponsible behavior and excessive speed, so we are well aware of the potential problems in that regard.
My reason for abandoning the topic (and I would have but thought your and Mc2Guy's posts were thoughtful and deserving of acknowledgement and response) is that a statement was made by another poster who began personally insulting me (IMHO) with his statement of "hating" people who like I believe in our rights and stand up for them. I've yet to see an apology for the percieved slight or clarification of the intent of the statement, and I chose to abandon the thread at that time rather than escalating when I was upset.
Smoky
Well-known member
I agree with you strongly that personal attacks do not belong on a discussion forum.
It is OK to debate a viewpoint, but clearly wrong to attack a person who has a viewpoint. It is the difference in views that makes forum discussions so educational.
I am glad you expressed your views and you have made some very good points.
It is OK to debate a viewpoint, but clearly wrong to attack a person who has a viewpoint. It is the difference in views that makes forum discussions so educational.
I am glad you expressed your views and you have made some very good points.
Living in Arizona, my problem is that the laws are there for generating revenue, not for protecting the public. Red light cameras are found to be far more effective in generating revenue when moving to a 3 second yellow than a standard 4 second yellow. Additionally with the speed cameras, we could guarantee 100% safety at Zero MPH anything above that increases risk of injury or death. Since cars, RVs etc have all gotten much safer each year, why are we limiting our speed to 65mph? How safe is safe enough? I would prefer they increase the speed limit to something reasonable and then enforce it. Making the speed on I-10 in Phoenix 75mph and then enforcing it would do more to reduce speed disparity which is a big cause of accidents. Lastly, raise the minimum speed from 45mph to 55mph OR require anyone less than 55mph to drive exclusively in the right lane THEN enforce it.
fzust said:
The right lane is for entering and exiting the freeway. When I drive slower than the general traffic such as towing my TT at 60 mph, I like to stay in the lane second from the right side. That allows traffic entering and exiting the freeway to accelerate or slow down to match freeway traffic speed. If you are on the interstate, not in the city, slower traffic should always be in the right lane.
fzust said:
How do you propose enforcing these increased speed limits? This is part of the primary problem, lack of enforcement of existing laws due to a lack of LEOs. Are you willing to accept an increase in your local taxes to up the number of traffic patrols in your area? If not then you are back to square one...unless you allow for automated enforcement. You can't have your cake and eat it too...doesn't work that way.
BTW, if you think that making the speed limit 75 would decrease the speed disparity, you are mistaken. I will not push the limits of physics (and sanity) by increasing my speed to 75 just because I am allowed to by law. I suspect others feel the same.
Smoky
Well-known member
Fzust:
I am glad to see Arizona generating revenue by catching speedsters. Far better they pay the state deficit then law abiding folks like you and me. ;D
I am glad to see Arizona generating revenue by catching speedsters. Far better they pay the state deficit then law abiding folks like you and me. ;D
Dick Zeiter
Well-known member
Mc2guy said:
Here in Toledo it's a civil fine. You pay $75 to contest it in front of city bureaucrats (not your piers) and merely end up flushing the extra $75 down the drain. Can you spell Kangaroo?
I'll just add my 2 cents before ignoring this thread. If the laws were written to keep the public safe then there would be no fines and you would lose you license after the second time being pulled over for a short length of time, say 30 days. THAT would stop the speeding flat out, BUT the laws are written so that there is revenue involved so it is in the best interest of the police and local governments to give out tickets only where it will make the most money NOT where it might do the most good. The proof, I was pulled over doing 50 in a 40 zone twice in a two year period, both times the jackbooted thug with the badge wrote me up as a 46 in a 40 since in his words 'I'd get no points' just a small fine. If they were serious about controlling the speeding I would have been written up for what I was doing but if they did that then the 'cash cow', i.e. the speed trap, would have been exposed to the public and people would have complained.
Oh and the reason I was 'speeding', the road used to be a 50 mph stretch and the lowered it for no other reason to generate speeding tickets and if you try to keep to the posted speed you get people trying to ride in your trunk.
Oh and the reason I was 'speeding', the road used to be a 50 mph stretch and the lowered it for no other reason to generate speeding tickets and if you try to keep to the posted speed you get people trying to ride in your trunk.
Smoky
Well-known member
You can complain all you want about what the best laws should be. (Directed to the group not a particular individual)
Unfortunately in a democracy, all YOU can do as an individual is vote for the lawmakers.
That said, it is pointless to complain about the actual law. It is sort of a "cop out". It would take a huge public effort to change the lawmakers in a way that will get you better laws. A very indirect process involving decades to accomplish. I try not to lose my energy in complaining about things I have such little control over.
Sooo ... that said ...
IMO we are far better off having imperfect laws that punish speeding and speedsters. I know that if I don't speed, it is HIGHLY unlikely I will be caught by mistake. HIGHLY UNLIKELY. My chances of a piano falling on me from the sky are much better.
I also know that better than 99.999 % of the speedsters caught by modern technology are guilty, They are guilty far more likely than getting hit by a piano falling out of the air.
So I am glad the speedsters are making up part of the deficit. ;D
Unfortunately in a democracy, all YOU can do as an individual is vote for the lawmakers.
That said, it is pointless to complain about the actual law. It is sort of a "cop out". It would take a huge public effort to change the lawmakers in a way that will get you better laws. A very indirect process involving decades to accomplish. I try not to lose my energy in complaining about things I have such little control over.
Sooo ... that said ...
IMO we are far better off having imperfect laws that punish speeding and speedsters. I know that if I don't speed, it is HIGHLY unlikely I will be caught by mistake. HIGHLY UNLIKELY. My chances of a piano falling on me from the sky are much better.
I also know that better than 99.999 % of the speedsters caught by modern technology are guilty, They are guilty far more likely than getting hit by a piano falling out of the air.
So I am glad the speedsters are making up part of the deficit. ;D
