Arizona Highway Cameras

[WrongWay]

I'll tell you something sad...ever since they did away with talking on the cell phones, I've found myself texting. How INCREDIBLY stupid is that? If I'M that stupid, I'm sure there are TONS more doing the same.

Put down the cell phone and stomp on the accelerator. We'll all be much, much safer!


65 isn't slow? If the flow of traffic is 80, then going 65 is too slow. It is FAR more likely to casue an accident than just speeding up to match the flow of traffic.


The problems arise when there are cars going a speed significantly different from the flow of traffic. You can't catch those people with a speed camera. You need a cop on the beat to do that.

[Tiggerlives]

If the flow of traffic is 80, then going 65 is too slow.

If 1,001 lemmings jump off a bridge....

Jeesh, how many Mouse Infoers live at a Holiday Inn Express? Because we sure have a lot of traffic experts on this board.

Me, I'll trust the people with engineering degrees whose profession it is to tell me what's safe- since it's not as easy as gleaming at the Audubon's Wikipedia page and determining accident rates.

[club33az]

As insulting as that last post was, even the people with engineering degrees will tell you that going against the flow is how accidents are caused.

If 1,001 lemmings jump off a bridge....

That is such a ridiculous comparison it's not even funny. I tell you what, V. Next time you're driving, drive on the left side of the road. I mean, you don't want to be like all the other lemmings out there, do you?

[Tiggerlives]

Next time you're driving, drive on the left side of the road. I mean, you don't want to be like all the other lemmings out there, do you?

I don't do things just because others do them. That's never a good reason.

with engineering degrees will tell you that going against the flow is how accidents are caused

I haven't seen anyone with an engineering degree make that post. I also know that if that's the case, then people should focus on reducing the flow back to the legal limit instead of making excuses for speeding and blatantly breaking the law.

Hmm....maybe a speed camera could actually be used to reduce the average speed of the highways?

[club33az]

That's a great way to look at life. I'm all for individuality. But there is such a thing as practicality. If you and a bunch of people are walking down a street and an out of control car comes careening towards you, you might want to be a lemming and go with the flow. Just a suggestion, of course.

I haven't seen anyone with an engineering degree make that post.

And you know this how? I wasn't aware a disclosure of prior education was a requirement of MI membership.

[cinder]

My husband is an engineer, and never once has stated that. Just sayin'.


All the guys I work with, I'll go ask them...yeah, they aren't in agreement either.


Going 80 is against the law, plain and simple. Haven't you read where if everyone is going 80, that doesn't make it right? That the cop can AND WILL pick one of you out, willy nilly, and ticket?


My father was a cop, my best friends husband is a cop...they agree with the above.

[club33az]

What does your husband and father and friends, etc. say about cars going 20 mph slower than the flow of traffic?

[Lacrosse Boy]

I'll trust the people with engineering degrees whose profession it is to tell me what's safe- since it's not as easy as gleaming at the Audubon's Wikipedia page and determining accident rates.

Yup. The 80+ years of experience and data we have dealing with the Autobahn must be false because laws were made which fly in the face of the truth.

How much do you even know about traffic engineering? Perhaps you'd know that they can wildly disagree instead of dogmatically believing driving 65 MPH when everyone is going 80 is safe? Why do you think we have an Autobahn that has no speed limits, and an Interstate with artificially low speed limits -- and no significant difference in accidents between the two? And you can't explain it, then it means that people are just selfish and trying to make up excuses by breaking the law, correct?

Here's a GREAT read about wildly different views traffic engineers can have: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but at least maybe you'll finally acknowledge that those traffic engineers don't agree or have the same ideas. Very interesting stuff to be found there. Would you like Monderman to design your roads?

I hate the phrase "think outside the box" but I'm going to have to say it -- it's time to take recognition of the fact that the "traffic engineers" who set the speed limit at 65 aren't always correct, and the fact that people who drive 80 on the road quite safely without repercussions suggest to me that the problem lies with the law, not the people driving too fast. You don't build a long, flat, wide, expansive ribbon of concrete and then tell people they can only drive 55 on it, even though it was designed for much faster speeds.

Towards the end of the article, it states"

The architecture of the road - not signs and signals - dictates traffic flow.

This is absolutely correct. Most of our freeways are designed, and people get conflicting messages from this, as I stated previously. I think the part of removing signs is bad -- the signs are absolutely needed -- but too many signs can add to clutter and make it difficult for people with too much visual noise.

[club33az]

And the funny thing is that the same government that say distracted driving is dangerous are the BIGGEST distractors!

[Tiggerlives]

I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but at least maybe you'll finally acknowledge that those traffic engineers don't agree or have the same ideas. Very interesting stuff to be found there. Would you like Monderman to design your roads?

Never once did I say there isn't variance. Duh, there's variance in all sciences.

However, we've hired the ones we've hired for a reason. And if you have a problem in a given area, go about trying to get a change in the hiring process or philosophical traffic flow ideals.

Just because someone disagrees a PROFESSIONAL opinion, doesn't give anyone the right to break the law.

hate the phrase "think outside the box" but I'm going to have to say it -- it's time to take recognition of the fact that the "traffic engineers" who set the speed limit at 65 aren't always correct, and the fact that people who drive 80 on the road quite safely without repercussions suggest to me that the problem lies with the law, not the people driving too fast.

I've said before I think 65 MPH may be too slow. I've said I drive over 65 MPH. So what? That doesn't give anyone the right to break the law (myself included). If people disagree with the law so vehemently, why not go about changing it?

Besides which, isn't it entirely possible that the Autobahn (created specifically with higher speeds in mind) isn't exactly an apt comparison to freeways that curve, have on and off ramps ever 1/4 mile and may not be in the same condition as the German Highway From Heaven?

And you know this how? I wasn't aware a disclosure of prior education was a requirement of MI membership

I dunno, seems like if someone making any of these arguments was a traffic engineer, it might help their case by stating 'when I studied at MIT' or 'it's my daily job to deal with traffic studies' But, I guess they could just be hiding out.