Off-topic Talk Where overpaid, underworked S2000 owners waste the worst part of their days before the drive home. This forum is for general chit chat and discussions not covered by the other off-topic forums.

No more speed camera in AZ

Thread Tools
 
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 06:44 AM
  #1  
Fast Driver's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
Default No more speed camera in AZ

Speed camera
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 06:47 AM
  #2  
84b18's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Default

Its true they are all gone. However I never had a problem with them, I would set my cruse controll at 74 and they would never go off.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 06:54 AM
  #3  
Wildncrazy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
Default

I only went thru Arizona 4 times and the speed cameras and the army that followed them were everywhere.

I was so glad I had a Valentine 1 because virtually every camera had 3-4 troopers in the vicinity to overwhelm traditional radar detectors.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 08:16 AM
  #4  
rob-2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,655
Likes: 171
Default

Great speed cameras are a tax grab and nothing else.

Both speed and redlight cameras have increased traffic accidents in all 3rd party studies.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 09:41 AM
  #5  
G's Avatar
G
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,100
Likes: 6
From: Maggie Valley, NC
Default

The major issue with them is that it shifts the burden of proof from law enforcement to the accused. This is unconstitutional as it changes our legal system from one of innocent until proven guilty to one that is of guilty until you can prove that you are innocent.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 03:46 PM
  #6  
phaphapho's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
From: Jackson, TN
Default

Originally Posted by G,Dec 31 2010, 10:41 AM
The major issue with them is that it shifts the burden of proof from law enforcement to the accused. This is unconstitutional as it changes our legal system from one of innocent until proven guilty to one that is of guilty until you can prove that you are innocent.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Don't even get me started on the confrontation clause issues presented. Nothing like making revenue collection a priority over public safety, eh?
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 04:00 PM
  #7  
dr.s2k's Avatar
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Default

You guys should come down to Australia and see how bad the speeding laws are here.
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 05:13 PM
  #8  
Mr.E.G.'s Avatar
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,281
Likes: 119
Default

Originally Posted by rob-2,Dec 31 2010, 09:16 AM
Great speed cameras are a tax grab and nothing else.

Both speed and redlight cameras have increased traffic accidents in all 3rd party studies.
I think speed cameras are BS as well but I am very skeptical about quotes like that. I can see how there would be an increase in rear end accidents as people try to avoid the tickets and slam on their brakes. However, I would argue that the red light cameras are no more to blame than a police officer sitting in his car at the same intersection. It takes two motorists driving poorly to create the above-mentioned scenario (assuming that's what you're referring to as the increase in accidents but please don't let me put words in your mouth).

Additionally, to lump all accidents into the same category seems like useless information. I suspect that even if there was a considerable increase in rear end accidents as a result of these cameras that it's still probably nets an improvement in terms of loss of life or serious injury in the sense that someone being T-boned when they run a red light is a more dangerous proposition.

Again, I agree that cameras like this are BS but I think that blanket statements like that are misleading at best.

Again, I'm doing a bunch of speculating here and mean no disrespect.
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 06:17 PM
  #9  
ElTianti's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
From: Rome, GA
Default

Originally Posted by Wildncrazy,Dec 31 2010, 07:54 AM
I only went thru Arizona 4 times and the speed cameras and the army that followed them were everywhere.

I was so glad I had a Valentine 1 because virtually every camera had 3-4 troopers in the vicinity to overwhelm traditional radar detectors.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. A radar detector allows me to detect the presence of police radar. How would more police radar make it harder for my radar detector to detect police radar?
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 07:00 PM
  #10  
Wildncrazy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by ElTianti,Jan 2 2011, 09:17 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. A radar detector allows me to detect the presence of police radar. How would more police radar make it harder for my radar detector to detect police radar?
When you see the cop you think that's it and go back to speeding but over the hill/around the corner/etc. is another cop you don't see because you think you know why the radar detector is going off.

In Arizona they'd string them out on the road so you had to pass several. They'd use radars on different bands to further confuse you.

I was even hit by X band. At one rolling speed camera I was hit by X, Ka and Laser.

With the V1 you not only get a counter to see how many different radars are painting you, but you also get arrows to show where they are.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:39 PM.