Arizona to eliminate speed-enforcement cameras on freeways

[MikeG]

I have never seen that happen, that is cars brake to 45 mph in a 65 mph when they see a photo radar unit. It's no different than when they near an overpass or some other place where a cop is hiding and suddenly see him. People do hit their brakes, but nothing to that extent, they drop to the posted speed limit. If there is a rear ender, it's because some moron was driving too close and too fast.

It's a little different on the congested urban freeway. It's the same as the "rubbernecker" or "gaper" delays. One guy taps the breaks, the next taps harder, pretty soon the new "safe and prudent" speed is far below the limit, unbeknownst to the last guy. 45 might be an exaggeration but it feels like it and it is definitely a dangerous scenario.

People are killed not because of police, red lights or any other traffic control device. They are killed because someone is driving faster than they are able to maintain control of their car. The majority of officers we've had killed on duty weren't killed as a result of gunfire or any other direct contact with a criminal. It was because the were driving too fast for the road conditions and lost control of their vehicle.

no doubt. Here's it seems the accidents related to officers are the Gore zone accidents and those hit by DUI drivers when they pull over another DUI and are standing on the side of the road. And they seem to be at least on par with or greater than death by violence. The last DPS person here was killed in a tragic vehicle-pedestrian accident where the vehicle was a pursuing DPS vehicle travelling at 100 mph. At night. You just can't react that fast to stationary objects.

You can rationalize all day long looking for another reason for fatal wrecks, but the bottom line is, someone is driving in a reckless manner or completely have their heads up their respective asses.

[Curt581]

I hate the speed cameras on freeways. Speed only kills when people are going different speeds. 75 and 75 is fine. 75 and 45 kills. People going from 75 to 45 when they see the camera is dangerous and there is no way to fight that instinct. Speed kills at intersections but it seems it's usually because they can't stop in time for a red light.

Fair enough. My point is that fatals at intersections are usually t-bones or head ones after swerving, correct? One car is essentially going 0 mph, the other is at 30, 40, 50+.

It's the other way that I was talking about. On the freeway, cars go 75-80. Speed limit is 65. When they first see speed cameras they instantly break to 45. Now you have someone doing 45 in a 65 and others doing 75 in a 65. That's what causes the accidents. It's okay if everyone is going 45. It's okay if everyone is going 75. It's not okay if some are going 45 and some are going 75.

That's nonsense.

That speed differential theory sounds logical when you read it on some anti-speed enforcement website, but it doesn't work in real life.

I've worked more than a few years of enforcement on freeways and from what I've seen, most auto passenger fatalities are due to striking fixed objects like guard rails, concrete divider walls, bridge abuttments, etc, -or- from ejection during a rollover. There is the occasional fatal head-on collision, but those are pretty infrequent due to the design of expressway systems.

(This doesn't include fatalities involving motorcyclists, or those involving heavy trucks, because those have different dynamics.)

I've seen a bunch of freak accidents on freeways that resulted in fatalities... odd debris punching through a windshield and hitting someone in the head, flash fires that killed someone trapped, pedestrians walking where they didn't belong.... that kind of thing, but I don't recall ever seeing a fatal crash where two passenger cars travelling in the same direction collided and the only factor was a differential of speed and no collision with a fixed object occurred.

If a car travelling 75 mph rear-ends a car doing 45, the speed differential is 30 mph. Not a huge difference. Not so when a car doing 75 hits a fixed object like a retaining wall.

Basic physics and the laws of inertia dictate that the faster you go, the more damage you will sustain when you hit something. In addition, the faster you go, the less time you have to react to an unexpected event. Higher speeds, proportionally longer braking distances.

Watch any NASCAR race. They're all travelling in the same direction, they're all doing 180-190 mph at the bigger tracks. Those cars rub and bump tap each other all the time. There are slower back-of-the-pack cars racing, too. If traffic travelling at high speed, but all doing the same speed, is as safe as you believe it to be, why do those racers need fire suits, HANS devices and helmets? Why do they need elaborate steel rollcages, sealed fuel cells and fire suppression systems?

[retdetsgt]

That speed differential theory sounds logical when you read it on some anti-speed enforcement website, but it doesn't work in real life.

I've seen those. That's where the rationalizations come from, no doubt.

[SHH 1313]

I hate them. They only have one real use and that is to raise revenue.
They only make people slow down in the 2 hundred metres either side of the scamera. The Gov't have reduced Traffic officers and use these things to 'police' the roads.

As for linking plates to records, we can't do that here with the Gatsos, CCTV yes, but they can't enforce speed. Although local councils and Transport for London use them to prosecute Bus lanes infractions.

Having lived in Tucson area, I totally agree. However the cameras on the dangerous intersections I have no problem with them.

Question:

You go thru a red light w/photo. What if you had slammed on your brakes to avoid ticket but caused a rear end collision? Yes you were doing the speed limit.

Advice and suggestion's please ???

[Sgt. Slaughter]

You go thru a red light w/photo. What if you had slammed on your brakes to avoid ticket but caused a rear end collision? Yes you were doing the speed limit.

Advice and suggestion's please ???

The vehicle in front is almost never at fault in a rear-end collision. The vehicle following to close to stop is cited.

[retdetsgt]

The vehicle in front is almost never at fault in a rear-end collision. The vehicle following to close to stop is cited.

+1

The bottom line in avoiding traffic accidents is to never drive in a manner that doesn't allow you to keep control of your vehicle. Weather, traffic conditions, etc., all come into consideration on that. And the speed you're driving is usually the determining factor in how well you can control said vehicle.

Everybody, me included think they're a better driver than they really are. But younger people are especially vulnerable to believing they can drive faster and more careless than everyone else because of their "superior" driving ability. No matter how good looking you are, how cool you are, how great your car looks or even how good your reflexes are, you can't overcome the laws of physics.

And when I say young people, that can mean people up through their 30's. To be honest, at about 45 I began to realize that "perhaps" I didn't know as much about everything as I thought I did.

[SHH 1313]

Quote: SGT Slaughter

The vehicle in front is almost never at fault in a rear-end collision. The vehicle following to close to stop is cited.

Correct.. Is is better to run light instead of slamming brakes on ? Or car following is a tail-gator, knowing you will get a ticket for running light, what should you do?

[retdetsgt]

Quote: SGT Slaughter

Correct.. Is is better to run light instead of slamming brakes on ? Or car following is a tail-gator, knowing you will get a ticket for running light, what should you do?

I'd brace myself and let him hit me. He would be at fault, but if you run the light and get hit, guess who pays? A judge is not going to be sympathetic to hearing how you avoided a rear ender.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

If I had to choose, I would rather be in a rear-end collision than be t-boned by cross traffic.

[SHH 1313]

I'd brace myself and let him hit me. He would be at fault, but if you run the light and get hit, guess who pays? A judge is not going to be sympathetic to hearing how you avoided a rear ender.

That answers that ! I do see your point...Thanks..SHH

[Kimble]

If I had to choose, I would rather be in a rear-end collision than be t-boned by cross traffic.

That's what she said!

[Sgt. Slaughter]

That's what she said!

Every collision discussion involving men quickly turns to juvenile sexual banter. We can add that to the list right after "death and taxes."

[ChevySSP]

The Sarge and Cat Doc probably have had more rear end collisions than the entire state of Rhode Island.....:D


They are from Arizona, after all.


Speaking of rear end collisions.....camera's don't cause them. People do.

[SHH 1313]

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't newer cars are better equipped to survive a T-Bone acc because of side airbags? Hypothetically speaking, in a rear end collision wouldn't there be a possibility of severe spinal cord injury? Or would being T-Boned be worse? Neither are good but, by the grace of God go I