Arizona Highway Cameras

[cinder]

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

If someone is going less than the LEGAL speed limit, then there is an issue. Until the speed limit is moved to 80, until I can not get a ticket for going 80...I will CONTINUE to do the LEGAL speed limit.


This is just going to have to be an agree to disagree. No amount of discussion on either of our parts will sway the other party. Which is all good in the hood for me.

[club33az]

See this is the part that I don't get. Whether it's legal or not to go 80, if the flow of traffic is 80, legal or not, and ONE car is going 60, that is a danger.

Let me put it this way. Let's say you're on a regular road, not a freeway. And traffic is moving at the posted limit of 45 mph. Except for one car going 25-30. That is a danger, correct?

[cinder]

See this is the part that I don't get. Whether it's legal or not to go 80, if the flow of traffic is 80, legal or not, and ONE car is going 60, that is a danger.

Let me put it this way. Let's say you're on a regular road, not a freeway. And traffic is moving at the posted limit of 45 mph. Except for one car going 25-30. That is a danger, correct?

Let me put it this way...the speed limit is what is LEGAL. You all going over are ILLEGAL.


This thread...I would love to break off, if you all want...we've gone off course.

[club33az]

Careening out of control at 80 mph! AAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And all I'm saying is that there is legal and there is reality. Sometimes the two don't correspond. It's like being in a cross walk but you see a car speeding up coming towards you. Do you get out of the way or do you stand there, confident in the knowledge that, legally, you have the right of way?

[Tiggerlives]

And all I'm saying is that there is legal and there is reality. Sometimes the two don't correspond

Reality is what it is only because of people's blatant disregard for the law. You know, those people who think they know better than experts what's safe?

I'd also like to point out that it does seem that the anti-camera movement appears to be a lot less about the illegalities of the cameras than whether or not it is 'OK' to speed.

And, if you're going 80 MPH and aren't a good enough driver to slow down when someone ahead of you is going 65 (just a 15 MPH difference)...then maybe you shouldn't be going 80 MPH? Since that difference hardly should warrant slamming on the brakes or causing an accident, but rather should simply inconvenience the speeder who wishes to go 80 MPH instead of the post 65.

[club33az]

Cinder's example before was that if the flow of traffic was going the speed limit and someone was driving 15-20 mph under that, that the slow person is the hazard. But if the flow of traffic is, in fact, speeding and someone is going 15-20 mph under that, than speed is the hazard, just because it's illegal to speed.

That just doesn't make sense. Legalities have little to do with the reality of one car impeding traffic.

[refurbmike]

Let me put it this way. Let's say you're on a regular road, not a freeway. And traffic is moving at the posted limit of 45 mph. Except for one car going 25-30. That is a danger, correct?

Happens all the time for me. My commute to work is through a school zone. Posted limit is 25, when kids are present. I slow down and people drive all over the place, trying to pass me. You think they should allowed to drive so fast with kids crossing the street and such?

Re: going slower than the speed limit: I visit Vegas often, from So Cal. Drive there about every other month now. People are constantly flying passed me, exceeding 85 in a 70 zone.

I'll re-iterate: Wanna guess how many accidents I've caused by going so slow? None.

What's really provocative is how this conversation has shifted from "speed cameras are bad" to "people who drive the speed limit should be punished." Think that maybe the people who don't like the government's ability to catch people speeding easier, are really against the government's regulation of traffic?

[Lacrosse Boy]

What's really provocative is how this conversation has shifted from "speed cameras are bad" to "people who drive the speed limit should be punished." Think that maybe the people who don't like the government's ability to catch people speeding easier, are really against the government's regulation of traffic?

Um... you think? Speed cameras are not only unconstitutional, they are but a symptom of a larger problem going on with our freeways. It's quite off-putting to have something illegal placed on the roadways to attempt to fleece motorists of their money, all while lying about their real purposes! They are bad news ALL AROUND, starting with the fact that the freeway speed limits are generally artificially low, and everyone here knows it -- including Vince who is the biggest cheerleader for cameras and speed limits, yet speeds anyway!

I'm glad you finally realized the symptom of the problem. It doesn't help that it is an unconstitutional symptom, to top-it-off.

Reality is what it is only because of people's blatant disregard for the law. You know, those people who think they know better than experts what's safe?

Yup, those dang German and Swiss engineers! Apparently you know better than them. In fact, when I first presented the fact that the Autobahn and the Interstates have no statistical differences in accidents and fatalities, the only points you came up with were 1) it's the law, and 2) fuel consumption. Neither of those are persuasive points.

Just out of curiosity, do you ever question the law? If you were living in Colonial America, would you have been with the Patriots or the Loyalists? Just because something is the "law" doesn't mean it's right, and if enough people break the law consistently, it's no longer effective, sort of like our speed limits. Why do you think the 55 MPH law was repealed? Most motorists, state governments, and police blatantly disregarded this law. Why? Because it was BAD. In fact, I was reading that in studies done, there was over 85% non-compliance with the law. Who's right: the law, or the motorists? If the law was a good law, the vast majority of motorists wouldn't be speeding, would they?

The design of the road dictates the rate at which people travel -- not speed limits. DUH! For several years the state of Montana recognized this, and did away with day-time speed limits:


Engineers clearly felt this was okay. What to know who didn't? Congress. It had nothing to do with engineers -- the roads were designed for faster speeds than what was posted. In fact, want to know what was considered "reasonable and prudent"? The very things several people in this thread have pointed out in regards to traffic flow:

Drivers are to be alert for:

• the amount and type of traffic sharing the highway with them. The traffic could have been heavy or light and may have included trucks, cars, motorhomes, farm equipment, and motorcycles.
• changing weather conditions that could have affected driver visibility and road conditions. These conditions could have included fog or snow and road surface conditions such as water or ice.
• the type of vehicle they were driving, particularly the condition of their brakes and the weight of their vehicle, which affects braking ability.
• the character of the highway they were driving. Drivers were to adjust their speed for hills or for winding and narrow roads.
• the presence of intersections, railway grade crossings or pedestrians.

In fact, I am coming to realize that engineers have very little input into what the speeds are on the roads. The more I read and study up on this, the more I realize that it's completely false to think that engineers set the speeds on our freeways.

Do you think engineers had input into the decision to make all roads top out at 55 MPH? There's one freeway here in the Twin Cities that is derisively known as "the Practice Freeway" because of the low speed limit -- community activists didn't want the freeway coming through their neighborhood, and setting the limit at 45 MPH was the compromise. Today, people speed through that thing at regular freeway speeds despite the 45 MPH limit, and I've never seen tickets handed out.

I am sure engineers have some level of input, but it's dang little level of input -- from what I gather, there is a range of recommended speeds. Local and federal law (which is very difficult to change) keeps them where they are -- not engineers. And unless people DON'T comply with the law, we won't see the limits budge to something more reasonable.

I'd also like to point out that it does seem that the anti-camera movement appears to be a lot less about the illegalities of the cameras than whether or not it is 'OK' to speed.

You seem to refuse to believe that there are many, many reasons people can be opposed to the cameras, whether it's foolish limits being set, unconstitutionality of the cameras, safety records of roads without limits, etc. All are incredibly persuasive, and much more than the argument of "it's the law", or the now demonstrably false one about engineers setting the limits.

FAIL.

[club33az]

Happens all the time for me. My commute to work is through a school zone. Posted limit is 25, when kids are present. I slow down and people drive all over the place, trying to pass me. You think they should allowed to drive so fast with kids crossing the street and such?

School zones are 15 mph and there's no passing allowed.

[Tiggerlives]

They are bad news ALL AROUND, starting with the fact that the freeway speed limits are generally artificially low, and everyone here knows it -- including Vince who is the biggest cheerleader for cameras and speed limits, yet speeds anyway!

Which only proves that I, myself, need to have guidance in order to put away the arrogant blinders that make one think he/she is a better driver than reality states.

If I need them, and I'm aware that speeding isn't always a good thing...think of how many people speed because they don't think speeding is bad?

In Arizona: I didn't speed. I felt much calmer driving. I had a much better experience on the road. Don't know if it's the cameras that caused the speed of traffic to flow at 65 MPH, although it seems ironic if it was just random happenstance. But WHATEVER the reason is, the fact remains that the traffic WAS going the posted speed limit and in my personal experience this was much smoother for all involved.

You seem to refuse to believe that there are many, many reasons people can be opposed to the cameras, whether it's foolish limits being set, unconstitutionality of the cameras, safety records of roads without limits, etc. All are incredibly persuasive, and much more than the argument of "it's the law", or the now demonstrably false one about engineers setting the limits.

Pretty much debunked the 'unconstitutionality' argument. But believe what you will about that.

As for your shotgun arguments- it's better to have a clearly defined argument than reach for every possible reason.....it weakens your overall position to do so.

As for other roads....correct me if I am wrong but the Autobahn was designed for high speeds and Montana has mostly FLAT and STRAIGHT roads, which would lend itself to traffic engineers deciding that a speed limit was unnecessary IN THAT AREA.

I've never once argued for a national speed limit. I've argued that engineers know what they are doing and that those who question them don't. Obviously a national engineer can not take into consideration the characteristics of each and every road. State engineers would be much better qualified to individually assess areas for safety and speed correlations.

Just out of curiosity, do you ever question the law?

Of course I do. But I don't make petty excuses and justify my ILLEGAL actions because I, personally, disagree with the law. There's a difference between questioning the law and thinking it's OK to blatantly disregard a law simply because you don't agree with it.

Let's see: Someone thinks dog fighting is OK...should they break that law? Someone thinks cocaine should be legal....let them deal it? Someone thinks it's OK to run across a freeway because 'he can make it'....let them do it?

The point remains, this is all just simple justification for an illegal activity. It's hard to look in the mirror and admit guilt, or fault, when breaking the law. I mean, you mocked me for doing so.