Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3242
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: Scottsdale Loop 101 Cameras to be activatedFeb 22
Quote:
101 photo enforcement returns Feb. 22
Michael Ferraresi
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 31, 2007 12:00 PM
Drivers who trigger reactivated Loop 101 photo-enforcement cameras will face speeding citations again Feb. 22, the SScottsdale's Loop 101 photo-enforcement cameras will be reactivated Feb. 22, the City Council decided Tuesday.
The cameras capture pictures of drivers going 11 mph or more over the Loop 101 speed limit of 65 mph. They generated more than $2.3 million for state coffers through speeding citation surcharges during a nine-month project that ended Oct. 23. Scottsdale estimates the state will get another $1.69 million through June.
The Scottsdale council voted 5-1, with Tony Nelssen dissenting, to switch the cameras back on through June, an action that could mark the advent of freeway photo enforcement in other parts of the state.
Nelssen and Councilman Bob Littlefield said they want to make sure profits from Scottsdale's cameras are put back into public safety.
State legislators are discussing how to divide funds from freeway photo speed-enforcement citations, which average about $157.
Some believe the state should control the money. Some Scottsdale officials said they want the money to fund police officers or highway patrolmen, rather than other projects.
"The state will find this is a fairly lucrative (program) for them, and it's unlikely it will go away," Councilman Jim Lane said Tuesday.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 189
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:42 am Post subject:
qudjy1 wrote:
Good news.
For Scottsdale's coffers, and the operators of the speed cameras, certainly. For those of us who find the increasing volume of surveillance in the name of "law and order", "safety", etc unsettling...less so. And remind me again, what makes 76 mph a criminal offense, while 75 mph is apparently perfectly okay, regardless of traffic, road conditions, etc.? If it were genuinely about public safety, there are much better ways to help. This is, basically, Scottsdale finding a nice cash-cow to milk.
Oh, and I speak as someone who has never even had a ticket, in 20 years driving.
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
For Scottsdale's coffers, and the operators of the speed cameras, certainly. For those of us who find the increasing volume of surveillance in the name of "law and order", "safety", etc unsettling...less so. And remind me again, what makes 76 mph a criminal offense, while 75 mph is apparently perfectly okay, regardless of traffic, road conditions, etc.? If it were genuinely about public safety, there are much better ways to help. This is, basically, Scottsdale finding a nice cash-cow to milk.
Oh, and I speak as someone who has never even had a ticket, in 20 years driving.
I think we have beaten this one to death in a different thread... if you are concerned about surveilence, than dont speed (which you dont). I for one, am thankful that the speed on that highway will be reduced (as studies have shown) - thus making me and my family safer. I noticed the difference in the last couple months having them turned off...
I do agree that the revenue should be put back into the public safety (officers or whatever), and used appropriately... fine...
Is 76 arbitrary? sure... but now you are arguing about speeding tickets in general, and not the cameras..
If there are better ways to help public safety - great! lets do those as well... this program should help fund those ideas.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1555
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am Post subject:
i'm with jim. no tickets, ever. and i f'ing hate those damned cameras. while i agree with jim's privacy concerns, my objection is simpler: i just don't see the logic behind them. the loop travels for a LOOOOOOONG way, and there's, what, 20 miles of cameras? and my experience in driving on the 101 during the last camera period was that most drivers gun it shortly before the cameras and directly afterwards, braking just before the first camera.
my father was a pipe fitter for GM. he ran cool water lines to their plants in flint. and so he always looked at the world in terms of a circuit of water. you fuck with one area of a very large circuit, then you're going to get little eddies elsewhere in the circuit, and not necessarily where it makes sense -- that is, the eddies don't appear right in front of or right after the disruption. sometimes it's pretty far away. but it's enough to make me wonder whether all the studies to confirm the camera's effect, which only looked at the camera areas, are perhaps invalid...
i only think that's pertinent because when stats people try to mimic traffic, they use a lot of fluid motion laws. so, maybe there's something there. maybe not.
either way, i hate the cameras. but they won't catch me...
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
i'm with jim. no tickets, ever. and i f'ing hate those damned cameras. while i agree with jim's privacy concerns, my objection is simpler: i just don't see the logic behind them. the loop travels for a LOOOOOOONG way, and there's, what, 20 miles of cameras? and my experience in driving on the 101 during the last camera period was that most drivers gun it shortly before the cameras and directly afterwards, braking just before the first camera.
my father was a pipe fitter for GM. he ran cool water lines to their plants in flint. and so he always looked at the world in terms of a circuit of water. you fuck with one area of a very large circuit, then you're going to get little eddies elsewhere in the circuit, and not necessarily where it makes sense -- that is, the eddies don't appear right in front of or right after the disruption. sometimes it's pretty far away. but it's enough to make me wonder whether all the studies to confirm the camera's effect, which only looked at the camera areas, are perhaps invalid...
i only think that's pertinent because when stats people try to mimic traffic, they use a lot of fluid motion laws. so, maybe there's something there. maybe not.
either way, i hate the cameras. but they won't catch me...
Im curious about the privacy concern. Why? What are you afriad of on the highway??? that "they" are tracking you??? I dont mean to be sarcastic here fellas - just playin, but my feeling is that i dont care if the government has pictures of me driving... police can do that now, right? its in a public area, and as long as i dont speed, i wont be photographed anyway.. just my opinion...
Otherwise, mac, you arent really against cameras, just the placement of them? So really this is about proper coverage... ensuring that there is a proper flow (albeit slower)...
I'm with the rest of you.. The only ticket i've had in the last 20 years was a photo trap and I wasnt even driving, but if you dont tell the court who is driving then you get to pay the fine or sit in traffic school for 4 hours. Well I didnt beef out on my brother... that damn class was cruel and unusual punishment.
Kyle
Go D Backs.
_________________
Ware the Dragon, for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 189
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject:
qudjy1 wrote:
Im curious about the privacy concern. Why? What are you afriad of on the highway??? that "they" are tracking you??? I dont mean to be sarcastic here fellas - just playin, but my feeling is that i dont care if the government has pictures of me driving... police can do that now, right? its in a public area, and as long as i dont speed, i wont be photographed anyway.. just my opinion...
The "they are tracking you" concept is nowhere near far-fetched, unfortunately. Britain already is doing exactly that - from December 2005:
Quote:
Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years. Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts. By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.
Of course, the claim is that this is solely to fight the boogeyman of crime: I don't know about you, but I find the potential for abuse in the collection and storage of such information almost incalculable. Especially given the current junta here's preference for security over liberty...
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
I'm with the rest of you.. The only ticket i've had in the last 20 years was a photo trap and I wasnt even driving, but if you dont tell the court who is driving then you get to pay the fine or sit in traffic school for 4 hours. Well I didnt beef out on my brother... that damn class was cruel and unusual punishment.
Kyle
Go D Backs.
So, again... not the camera you should be mad at... I think that is one of the ways to get out of a photo ticket, is they have to photo YOU driving - if it is someone else, they throw it out...
Im curious about the privacy concern. Why? What are you afriad of on the highway??? that "they" are tracking you??? I dont mean to be sarcastic here fellas - just playin, but my feeling is that i dont care if the government has pictures of me driving... police can do that now, right? its in a public area, and as long as i dont speed, i wont be photographed anyway.. just my opinion...
The "they are tracking you" concept is nowhere near far-fetched, unfortunately. Britain already is doing exactly that - from December 2005:
Quote:
Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years. Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts. By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.
Of course, the claim is that this is solely to fight the boogeyman of crime: I don't know about you, but I find the potential for abuse in the collection and storage of such information almost incalculable. Especially given the current junta here's preference for security over liberty...
Wow... that is pretty crazy... i can see where that would be a problem. Esp because they are taking it to just about every road in a city.. and they are not just tracking violators... everybody...
We arent talking about that here... If it was up to me, it would just be highways (obvioulsy only violations are photod), and all local stuff wouldnt be policed in this way...
Just my opinion... im not a huge "privacy worry" guy... im just not that interesting for someone to track...
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1555
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject:
i'm going to answer the second part first and the first part second. why? not entirely sure.
Quote:
Otherwise, mac, you arent really against cameras, just the placement of them? So really this is about proper coverage... ensuring that there is a proper flow (albeit slower)...
no, i'm against both. i'm against the cameras, because they are arbitrary (10 miles over, fine; 11 miles over, 200 dollar ticket), pointless (only control 20 miles of the loop), and don't take into consideration the flow of traffic or driving condition.
and i'm against the coverage, because "fixing" 20 miles of an enormous stretch of road doesn't really "fix" anything, does it?
either this is wrong, and shouldn't be done at all, or it is right, and should be implimented along the entire loop.
Quote:
Im curious about the privacy concern. Why? What are you afriad of on the highway??? that "they" are tracking you??? I dont mean to be sarcastic here fellas - just playin, but my feeling is that i dont care if the government has pictures of me driving... police can do that now, right? its in a public area, and as long as i dont speed, i wont be photographed anyway.. just my opinion...
i'm wary of how often my photo is taken in public. i don't think that's weird. let's say i drive from my home in the east valley to work in the west valley and back. a normal day. i stop somewhere for gas, somewhere else for lunch on the go. maybe i stop at a kinko's. how many times along the way is my picture taken? where are all the pictures going? what if i'm doing my normal wednesday driving without pants thing? it creeps me out. i don't like it.
and, i really really hate the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide." i'm not doing that much wrong, and personally, i don't feel that i have much to hide. but i'm not about to invite a cop into my place to look around. and i don't like knowing my cell phone calls are being listened to, my car is being photographed when i drive somewhere at 3am, or that i'm photographed if i attend anti war rallies, stuff like that.
i [heart] civil liberties. and i hate what's happening to them. so any minor erosion of them, even stupid shit like loop 101 cameras, will irk me.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
As far as arbitrary numbers - ok - I agree that the difference of 1 extra MPH being an extra $200 is rather silly, but how is that different than an officer pulling you over? He decides - just depends on his mood that day - time of the month quota wise... THAT is arbitrary... with a 76 MPH speed limit (or whatever) everybody knows the rules of the game...
I agree with you that a 20M stretch doesnt fix much, lets do it the right way... do the whole thing...
Pictures - Yeah, i know i stand way on one side of that issue... it doesnt bother me as much as others. I understand your viewpoint and concern on Civil Libertiess - i really dont think thats what we are talking about here - this is more about enforcing the laws that exist. If they started taking pictures of people who were not breaking laws, i would be on your side here...
Quote:
i'm wary of how often my photo is taken in public. i don't think that's weird. let's say i drive from my home in the east valley to work in the west valley and back. a normal day. i stop somewhere for gas, somewhere else for lunch on the go. maybe i stop at a kinko's. how many times along the way is my picture taken?
- NONE - If you dont break the speeding law. If they start tracking non speeders, than i agree with you.
Quote:
and, i really really hate the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide." i'm not doing that much wrong, and personally, i don't feel that i have much to hide. but i'm not about to invite a cop into my place to look around. and i don't like knowing my cell phone calls are being listened to, my car is being photographed when i drive somewhere at 3am, or that i'm photographed if i attend anti war rallies, stuff like that.
I agree with you somewhat - My point didnt really come out right... what i was really trying to get across was that if this is just about speeding - i like it... To me, its no different than having more cops on the side of the road...
I'm with the rest of you.. The only ticket i've had in the last 20 years was a photo trap and I wasnt even driving, but if you dont tell the court who is driving then you get to pay the fine or sit in traffic school for 4 hours. Well I didnt beef out on my brother... that damn class was cruel and unusual punishment.
Kyle
Go D Backs.
So, again... not the camera you should be mad at... I think that is one of the ways to get out of a photo ticket, is they have to photo YOU driving - if it is someone else, they throw it out...
You'd think so, but it doesn't work that way. You either have to identify or pay the fine or go to court..
Kyle
_________________
Ware the Dragon, for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1555
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject:
hey, if you don't have to testify against your wife, do you have to give her up to a photo radar ticket? (serious question there...)
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
hey, if you don't have to testify against your wife, do you have to give her up to a photo radar ticket? (serious question there...)
Im thinking yes... If I remember right, the privledge is restricted to communcations between spouses. But I could be wrong, my law degree came from watching Law & Order.
Kyle
_________________
Ware the Dragon, for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1555
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject:
csktech wrote:
McCray wrote:
hey, if you don't have to testify against your wife, do you have to give her up to a photo radar ticket? (serious question there...)
Im thinking yes... If I remember right, the privledge is restricted to communcations between spouses. But I could be wrong, my law degree came from watching Law & Order.
Kyle
they had a memorial day law and order years ago when i was an undergrad. you had to take a shot everytime they made that "doink-doink" sound between scenes. we started at 10am, and by mid afternoon i was nearly dead.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
hey, if you don't have to testify against your wife, do you have to give her up to a photo radar ticket? (serious question there...)
Im thinking yes... If I remember right, the privledge is restricted to communcations between spouses. But I could be wrong, my law degree came from watching Law & Order.
Kyle
they had a memorial day law and order years ago when i was an undergrad. you had to take a shot everytime they made that "doink-doink" sound between scenes. we started at 10am, and by mid afternoon i was nearly dead.
Be still my acheing head... I remember those days.. We played to star trek reruns. Had to take a drink on any special effect sound. I was usually toast before the third act.
Kyle
Go D Backs
_________________
Ware the Dragon, for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1871
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject:
McCray wrote:
they had a memorial day law and order years ago when i was an undergrad. you had to take a shot everytime they made that "doink-doink" sound between scenes. we started at 10am, and by mid afternoon i was nearly dead.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 189
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject:
qudjy1 wrote:
To me, its no different than having more cops on the side of the road...
A cop has the ability to use their judgment, and decide whether a given speed is unsafe. I came down the 51 in today's storm, and 50 mph would have been insane. But different conditions, traffic volume, etc. make a huge difference. If you're driving at an unsafe speed, there should certainly be repercussions, but deciding what constitutes that requires intelligence, not just video-cameras. Plus, cops can also assist with other issues, look out for non-speeding infractions, etc. Seems a better alternative to me.
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject:
AZ SnakePit wrote:
qudjy1 wrote:
To me, its no different than having more cops on the side of the road...
A cop has the ability to use their judgment, and decide whether a given speed is unsafe. I came down the 51 in today's storm, and 50 mph would have been insane. But different conditions, traffic volume, etc. make a huge difference. If you're driving at an unsafe speed, there should certainly be repercussions, but deciding what constitutes that requires intelligence, not just video-cameras. Plus, cops can also assist with other issues, look out for non-speeding infractions, etc. Seems a better alternative to me.
Having a brother as a cop biases me toward the human element having more value than video-cameras. Budgets play an unfortunate role in these decisions as 20 cameras are substantially cheaper than 20 police officers, although as Jim pointed out the former provides far less value to the public than does the latter.
Having a brother as a cop biases me toward the human element having more value than video-cameras. Budgets play an unfortunate role in these decisions as 20 cameras are substantially cheaper than 20 police officers, although as Jim pointed out the former provides far less value to the public than does the latter.
Hey... im not advocating the replacement of humans here - as i said somewhere, these cameras may fund officers... and i read stuff like this:
Cameras now off, Loop 101 drivers floor it 1 car clocked at 139 mph on Day 1 without monitors
Michael Ferraresi
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 26, 2006 12:00 AM
The day after Scottsdale's Loop 101 cameras went dark, the number of speeders going 11 mph or more over the limit nearly doubled.
Sensors embedded along the 8-mile stretch detected 1,592 speeders going 76 mph or faster Tuesday, compared with the 800-a-day average snapped during the nine-month test ending Monday night.
During January's ticket-free grace period, the daily average was 1,006. Tuesday's number, including one car going at a top speed of 139 mph, is the highest recorded since this spring, Scottsdale spokesman Mike Phillips said.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety says it will not add patrols to Scottsdale's strip of the Loop 101.
"The way we patrol is not based on an 8-mile stretch," DPS spokesman Harold Sanders said. "It's just part of an area we have to maintain."
The agency considers adding patrols where statistics show an increase in DUI-related incidents, collisions or complaints about aggressive driving, he said.
...human officers were not being assigned to this area enough to make a difference - as speed climbed right when the cameras were shut off...
Like i said - i really dont care why, i just know i can tell the difference when i drive this stretch from when they are on, to when they are off..
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 55
Location: Scottsdale
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject:
I've always wondered about the crash statistics based on speed. I know that the severity and number of accidents will decrease with the cameras, but how will they influence the number of vehicles involved in the accidents? Personally, my hypothesis is that the cameras will cause a tightening of cars at specific locations, which could potentially lead to an accident that has a larger number of cars. In my mind, a camera on the 101 is acting in the same manor as a restrictor plate at Daytona or Talladega in a NASCAR race. The restrictor plates tend to lead to less serious and fewer accidents at those tracks, but the accidents that do occur seem to involve 12 or 15 cars instead of 3 or 4. I'd like to see a study done on the "size" of the accidents on the 101.
By the way, I'm really proud of Tony Nelssen for opposing the re-activation. This issue--in no small part--is why I supported him last spring.
Though I share the privacy/civil rights concerns and distaste for government intrursion into our daily lives, I'll play devils' advocate here and say that I find it hard to get too shook up over cameras on the freeway that only take your picture in response to your meeting certain criteria (driving over 75 mph) when you can't go into any store/bank/government building etc. without being captured on video the entire time that your are present in the facility. And, as for being arbitrary, all speed limits are arbitrary and so are all rules that attempt to put limits on behavior.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
And remind me again, what makes 76 mph a criminal offense, while 7
