AZ Ballot initiative would seek to ban photo radar

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Knowing you I thought it had to be but the humor was so dry that I took you serious. You got me on that one. Good job, I fell for it.

Glad I could help out.

You could help out by positng som Bikini Pics...I still ahve the one of that busty spanish girl named Carmen somewhere on my computer here but I like you style so keep those coming, or start them again I mean.

[grizzaholic]

Glad I could help out.

You could help out by positng som Bikini Pics...I still ahve the one of that busty spanish girl named Carmen somewhere on my computer here but I like you style so keep those coming, or start them again I mean.

You are going to have to show me how to post pics here. I am a complete boob when it comes to posting pics. I will however go to the sauna and post a couple.

[dbackjon]

An effort to ban photo speed enforcement on Arizona highways advanced Thursday when lawmakers passed a bill out of committee.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 5-2 to recommend approval of House Bill 2106, which would force the removal of the cameras now installed on Interstate 10, Loop 101 and other highways.

“This was done in the name of revenue,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, who voted for the ban. “It is a speed tax, and it is being done to fund social programs.”

Biggs said the bright camera flashes pose a danger to motorists. Other lawmakers voted against the bill, saying the real danger would come in removing the cameras from state highways.

The cameras “dramatically reduce the number of accidents and increase the safety of our freeways,” said Rep. Eric Meyer, D-Phoenix, citing data provided by the Department of Public Safety.http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 22-ON.html

[grizzaholic]

An effort to ban photo speed enforcement on Arizona highways advanced Thursday when lawmakers passed a bill out of committee.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 5-2 to recommend approval of House Bill 2106, which would force the removal of the cameras now installed on Interstate 10, Loop 101 and other highways.

“This was done in the name of revenue,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, who voted for the ban. “It is a speed tax, and it is being done to fund social programs.”

Biggs said the bright camera flashes pose a danger to motorists. Other lawmakers voted against the bill, saying the real danger would come in removing the cameras from state highways.

The cameras “dramatically reduce the number of accidents and increase the safety of our freeways,” said Rep. Eric Meyer, D-Phoenix, citing data provided by the Department of Public Safety.http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 22-ON.html

I hope it passes dback.

[Appaholic]

I do support the red-light cameras

Can't have it both ways Jon.....their either invasive or they aren't....

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I do support the red-light cameras

Can't have it both ways Jon.....their either invasive or they aren't....

I agree with you of course Appa and I'm glad to see that at least another western state and some in it's govenment have seen this for what it is and are taking the proper steps to push govenment and authorities back out of citizen's lives a little bit. I can see dbagjon's reasoning on it to a point but the opening of the door is what needs to be stopped.

[travelinman67]

I do support the red-light cameras

Can't have it both ways Jon.....their either invasive or they aren't....

I'm with you on this Appa...

...both red light and speeding cameras are constitutionally invasive in the absence of a statistical purpose. I see no problem with them being deployed at interesections with accident ratios that exceed the means by 200% or more for intersections within 10% of similar traffic counts. That was a policy similar to what CHP ("contracted" city/county) enforcement used to follow when establishing "targeted enforcement" intersections or roadway segments.
In application, however, I'm seeing local govts. automatically deploy them with most new traffic signal installation, or worse, in "speed trap" zones (coincidentally, mostly downgrades). The reality is that they're revenue generators, and utilizing the third party "lease" option is IMHO unethical if not unconstitutional. Once govt. contracts out traffic enforcement with a profit motive for volume, the legal foundation establishing the purpose of traffic laws has overtly been subjugated to revenue/profit.

As a side comment, something I've advocated for almost 20 years, most municipalities and state agencies should be forced into implementing traffic sychronization systems which would DRASTICALLY reduce accidents, violations, wasted time, improved mileage, and decrease pollution. The National Motorists Association has made this their banner cause for the past decade or so, and issues report cards based on government's progress towards sychnonization. They've refined their analysis over the years and the 2007 report card estimated...

If the nation supported its signals at an A grade level, quality of life and protection of the environment would benefit
significantly, including:

• Reductions in traffic delay ranging from 15–40 percent; reductions in travel time up to 25 percent; and reductions in stops ranging from 10–40 percent.
For example, a driver who spends two hours in the car commuting to and from work and running errands would save 117.5 hours per year as a benefit of improved signal timing.

• Reductions in fuel consumption of up to 10 percent. A driver who uses one tank of gas a week would save five full tanks per year per household, or approximately $240.14 Nationwide, this would amount to a savings of almost 17 billion gallons of motor fuel per year.

• Reductions in harmful emissions (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) up to 22 percent.
According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project, motor vehicles are the largest source of urban air pollution. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that vehicles generate 3 billion pounds of air pollutants yearly. Note: Spending less than 1 percent of the total expenditure on highway transportation would lead to a level of excellence in traffic signal operations.

This investment strategy would leverage an investment with a 40:1 benefit-cost ratio and would result in benefits of as much as $45 billion per year. This corresponds to a price of less than $3 per U.S. household resulting in savings of $100 per household per year.

Overview of problem discussed here: http://www.motorists.org/blog/a-simple- ... -using-it/
2007 Report Executive Summary here: http://www.ite.org/reportcard/NTSRC%20E ... 0final.pdf
2007 Technical Report here: http://www.ite.org/reportcard/technical ... 0final.pdf

Cities which have implemented synchronization are validating the estimates cited by NMA studies. Having said that, why wouldn't most government agencies be scrambling to implement sychronization?

1) Decreased fine revenue.
2) Increased prosperity which reduces the need for government social assistance programs, ergo, reducing dependence on and the need for, more government.

That's why liars like Al Gore champion "cap and trade" with trillions generated via fees and penalties, rather than promoting something that benefits everyone: The citizens, business, the environment, and ultimately in the long term, our country's prosperity.