Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/27/2004 6:27:54 AM EST
Get you Valentine One's and photo blocking plate covers ready for battle.

www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0727radar27.html#

Scottsdale considers Loop 101 photo radar
Lesley Wright
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 27, 2004

Speeding drivers on Scottsdale's deadly section of Loop 101 may be slowed by photo radar in coming months.

Scottsdale and the Arizona Department of Transportation have begun talks with the Governor's Office to start a pilot program to use the mechanical cops on the 16 miles of the freeway that runs through the city.

"Photo radar has been accepted by our community," City Manager Jan Dolan said. "We are talking to the state about it. Both ADOT and the (Arizona Department of Public Safety) are in agreement that a pilot program would be worthwhile."

Dolan said a variety of approvals will be necessary, since Scottsdale would run the program on state property.

Loop 101 has become notorious for attracting speeders. Since 2001, 11 people have died in accidents on Scottsdale's portion of the freeway, between McKellips and Scottsdale roads.

In March 2003, when DPS conducted a two-week crackdown on the freeway, officers issued 1,552 speeding citations.

A year later, Scottsdale police won permission to launch their own unprecedented weeklong enforcement dragnet, along with DPS officers and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community police, and caught more than 100 speeders.

Dolan said that to her knowledge, this would be the first time anyone in the nation has put the photo radar mechanisms on a freeway.

Doug Nintzel, an ADOT spokesman, said the agency is open to the idea.

"At this point, it's a matter of answering a lot of questions about how the system would work," he said.

Deaths and accidents have raised a public outcry for drastic measures, but DPS officers have cut back enforcement in recent months, saying they are stretched thin because they must patrol all Valley freeways.

"It would be another avenue to consider to try and slow down drivers on the 101," Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross said. "It's a crowded roadway. You can't do anything about that, but you can do something about the speed. We need to get (drivers') attention."
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 8:25:38 AM EST
Damn!
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 9:03:58 AM EST
Can't race to Scottsdale Gun Club anymore...
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 9:05:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By azmotorsports:
Can't race to Scottsdale Gun Club anymore...



Why not? Aren't you FEDS given a "courtesy pass"? :)


(Yes, I am just kidding and am taking that other thread much too far...hehehehe).

TimW
Phoenix
Practical Tactical, LLC
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 9:13:51 AM EST
Guess Scottsdale needs a new funding source....

Link Posted: 7/27/2004 9:17:02 AM EST
Surprisngly I don't really care. People shouldn't be going faster than the speed limit (I believe it's 65) on the Loop 101. Don't want to get a ticket, don't speed.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 9:17:18 AM EST
Just by one of those Hockey masks from "FRIDAY THE 13th". The tickets don't stick if you're not Identifiable!
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 11:06:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 11:27:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:

Originally Posted By markm:
Just by one of those Hockey masks from "FRIDAY THE 13th". The tickets don't stick if you're not Identifiable!



I alternate between a Richard Nixon Mask, Darth Vader Helmet, Ninja Mask, and Pirate Eye Patch.....gotta keep 'em guessing.




Link Posted: 7/27/2004 11:48:39 AM EST
Or one of those things the Taliban wrap their filthy faces with. Shit, if they put the radar in I'm getting covered up and blowing right through the cameras!
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 11:59:43 AM EST
Crap. Now I need to slow down too.

I personally think it is a opening to a BAD trend.

Link Posted: 7/27/2004 1:17:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By aztrooper:
Crap. Now I need to slow down too.

I personally think it is a opening to a BAD trend.



I hear what you're saying. But, are you saying that from a rights perspective, or a police union member? Maye a little of both. No disrespect intended, but I can see a reduction in patrols if this sticks.

Mike
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 2:36:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By TimW:

Originally Posted By azmotorsports:
Can't race to Scottsdale Gun Club anymore...



Why not? Aren't you FEDS given a "courtesy pass"? :)


(Yes, I am just kidding and am taking that other thread much too far...hehehehe).

TimW
Phoenix
Practical Tactical, LLC



I was actually waiting for that. Too funny.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 3:25:29 PM EST
If I lower my tailgate on my truck the cameras can't get it.

But more importantly, how come I am never behind the speeders? Every road I am on, I get the 3 cars lined up next to each other going exactly 5mph below the speed limit.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 5:55:59 PM EST


Speeding on the 101 is not the cause of all accidents.

The main cause is un-safe highway building. They should of made the major cross roads go over the freeway. Instead they made little hills in the freeway going over these roads. This has caused blind spots. You can drive, say 65 or 75 mph and come over one of these little hills. All of the sudden the traffic is stopped. Causing people to slam into the back of people.

Another factor is drivers with cell phones. I've been behind them and they slow down to 45 to 55 mph going up the little ADOT created hills. So now you have people going 45 mph and people going 75 mph. Some even going 85 to 90 mph.

So now you have people traveling on the same road going 45 mph difference in speed . This major difference is what's killing people.

Another problem is people stopping on the freeway, to look a someone changing a flat tire.

ADOT also should build a concrete median in the middle of the freeway and put those green plastic louvers on top of it. This way you can't see the opposite flow of traffic, unless your stopped.
This to would eliminate rubber neckers stopping to look at a wreck, that is on the other side of the freeway. Causing another wreck on the opposite side. I know these plastic louvers work. They have them in the Frisco/Oakland bay area freeways. You can have a major wreck on one side, but the other side is sill flowiing at the speed limit.

Just my two cents.

As for speeding I may go 5 to 8 mph over the speed limit. Most everyone else does the same.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 6:15:26 PM EST
Until I moved to Arizona I had never seen the type of freeway setup where we have an on ramp just before an off ramp. The bottom line is that people can't merge anyway, add this factor in and you are asking for trouble. I don't think that speeding is as big of an issue as tailgating and red light running. I have never lived in a place where this is such a problem. It used to be that only two cars ran the red light, now it's up to three most of the time when I count them. I don't get it.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 7:00:01 PM EST
More Orwellian revenue-generating bullshit.

Hopefully, more "Patrick Henrys" will be taking these fucking pieces of shit out.

(I remember when PV had some of their cams shot to shit, I saw it on TV and laughed my ass off)

PS, Fuck you Scottsdale PD, you bunch of undiciplined , money grubbing,fucksticks!

D.
AZEX

PS, What's a Valentine One?
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 7:02:55 PM EST
If we had spent 2-billion dollars on better and additional freeways instead of alternative fuel vehicles... and now people want to spend another 2 billion dollars on a light rail that moves 15mph....
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 7:15:17 PM EST
revenue generation.

look for next weeks news on lowering the BAC of drivers to .05 and increacing fines to 10k per offense.

its for the children.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 7:39:00 PM EST
I notice that the warmer the climate, the faster the drivers.

WA-Freeways average five over, usually around 65 mph
AZ-People seemed to go only a little over in town, but I never saw a speed trap on I10 N of Nogales, and I did 95 or so. Everyone else was doing maybe 85-90.

My truck is registered to the family corporation, and I have sped past at least a dozen cameras without incident.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 7:53:45 PM EST
A Valentine One is a radar detector.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 8:51:50 PM EST
My question is if you invoke Your RIGHT to face your accuser are they going to bring the camera in to testify against you? That is presuming that your RIGHT to face your accuser stipulates the accuser has a face. I am not defending the speeders by any means but "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" can't remember who said that but it was a forefather. Do we sacrifice our RIGHTS for safer drive to work. It doesn't balance out for me. Just MHO
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 10:06:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2004 10:06:44 PM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By ArmorerKrug:
My question is if you invoke Your RIGHT to face your accuser are they going to bring the camera in to testify against you? That is presuming that your RIGHT to face your accuser stipulates the accuser has a face. I am not defending the speeders by any means but "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" can't remember who said that but it was a forefather. Do we sacrifice our RIGHTS for safer drive to work. It doesn't balance out for me. Just MHO



The city or state is accusing you. They have photgraphic evidence.
The above argument doesn't make sense. You rob a conveince clerk, shoot him dead right in front of the security camera and then run out. So the state can't try you for the crime because the only evidence they have is the security camera?
Like I said before, that's why the trial would be The State of Arizona vs. so and so. The State is your accuser.
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 11:15:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2004 11:15:54 PM EST by Steve_]

Originally Posted By azexarms:

PS, What's a Valentine One?




www.valentine1.com

Steve_
Link Posted: 7/27/2004 11:30:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By AZ_newguy:

Originally Posted By aztrooper:
Crap. Now I need to slow down too.

I personally think it is a opening to a BAD trend.



I hear what you're saying. But, are you saying that from a rights perspective, or a police union member? Maye a little of both. No disrespect intended, but I can see a reduction in patrols if this sticks.

Mike



There is no union in AZ. And I have plenty on my plate besides speeders on the 101.

But that was a good point. Well taken.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 3:38:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:


The city or state is accusing you. They have photgraphic evidence.
The above argument doesn't make sense. You rob a conveince clerk, shoot him dead right in front of the security camera and then run out. So the state can't try you for the crime because the only evidence they have is the security camera?
Like I said before, that's why the trial would be The State of Arizona vs. so and so. The State is your accuser.



Yea but... you have a dead body and forensic evidence to cooberate the video. Can you get a conviction with video alone? No body? no balistics? no witness? no forensics? no missing person report? only a video? What about mock snuff films they look real enough.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 4:08:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By azexarms:

PS, Fuck you Scottsdale PD, you bunch of undiciplined , money grubbing,fucksticks!




For once I agree. The officers I've come in contact with are good guys. But the fuck tard that decides where to stick the photo radar van is strictly on a revenue mission.

I remember seeing it on one of those EAST/WEST between Scottsdale road and Hayden where there was no side streets OR intersecting roads. I.E. a low priority speed enforcement spot where people would tend to pick it up a bit cuz nothing is there.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 8:00:33 AM EST
The Scotts PD that I've met are a bunch of assholes.

And they WILL pull you over just to steal your photo radar plate (of course, they'll make up some reason to pull you over to do it), they even predicated a stop on only ONE of my license plate illumination lights being lit, but threatened to take me to jail after I demanded to get out and look for myself. (???!!!)

For the record, I've never cussed and talked so much shit to any agency's personnel in my life, but then again, I've never met bigger shytheads.

D.
AZEX
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 8:03:24 AM EST
Wow. Do they take those foto radar plate covers on the spot?

That is rather dickish.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 8:10:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/28/2004 8:10:33 AM EST by prebans]
Three questions.....

1. I saw some spray you can apply to your plate. It'll SUPPOSEDLY (I've never tested it or heard from anyone who duid test it) keep your plate unreadable like an anti-phodar plate but there's no way the naked eye can tell you used it. Downside is that it needs to be reapplied weekly and when it rains.

Anyone have any experience with the stuff?

2. Also, someone told me of an electronic license plate hider-- it can't be seen until you hit some button inside the vehicle and then the plate can't be seen for phodar.

Any truth to that or is it an urban legend?

3. Does the tailgate down always work, or is it only on certain models? I've got a '99 F150.

Thanks,

Mike
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 8:29:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By prebans:
Three questions.....

1. I saw some spray you can apply to your plate. It'll SUPPOSEDLY (I've never tested it or heard from anyone who duid test it) keep your plate unreadable like an anti-phodar plate but there's no way the naked eye can tell you used it. Downside is that it needs to be reapplied weekly and when it rains.

Anyone have any experience with the stuff?

2. Also, someone told me of an electronic license plate hider-- it can't be seen until you hit some button inside the vehicle and then the plate can't be seen for phodar.

Any truth to that or is it an urban legend?

3. Does the tailgate down always work, or is it only on certain models? I've got a '99 F150.

Thanks,

Mike



Best thing that will work is if you don't speed and stop for red lights.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 8:39:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Best thing that will work is if you don't speed and stop for red lights.



But why? When you can spend 10 times the time, energy, and effort to try and out smart the system.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 8:48:30 AM EST
As a motorcyclist, I have no problem with traffic cameras placed at intersections. We've got waaaayyy too many dipsticks in AZ trying to beat the traffic lights. I do, however, have a major problem with photo radar placed anywhere else. It's used for nothing but a cheap source of revenue for the cities.

Speaking of revenue, I've read, in the past, that the cities don't usually purchase the traffic camera/photo radar equipment, but instead, lease it from the companies that make the stuff. The companies that make the equipment, in turn, receive a rather large percentage (50-75%) of the fine assessed to each violator. What could be more fu*cked up than that? Corporate America using thinly veiled rationale (safety) to turn a profit.

Some things are so wrong...
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 9:44:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By prebans:
Three questions.....

1. I saw some spray you can apply to your plate. It'll SUPPOSEDLY (I've never tested it or heard from anyone who duid test it) keep your plate unreadable like an anti-phodar plate but there's no way the naked eye can tell you used it. Downside is that it needs to be reapplied weekly and when it rains.




They did a review of this stuff on one of the local TV stations awhile back. They tried several different products, including the spray. The spray was the only one that actually worked believe it or not.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 10:14:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Friendly_Sponge:
As a motorcyclist, I have no problem with traffic cameras placed at intersections. We've got waaaayyy too many dipsticks in AZ trying to beat the traffic lights.



Yup. I watched some poor fucking idiot on a bicycle get hit by a red light running fuck a few weeks ago at 44th street and McDowell.

It happened right in front of me. The guy did a rag doll flip and landed in the intersection. Blood out the nose and ears. I've been driving EXTRA careful after witnessing that mess. I don't know if the guy lived or what. He was still breathing when Fire got there.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 11:13:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/28/2004 11:19:55 AM EST by prebans]

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Best thing that will work is if you don't speed and stop for red lights.




It's one thing if it actually stops crashes-- red light cameras, etc. I've got nothing against actually doing something if it's done to actually increase safety and decrease crashes. It's another thing if it's just a revenue raiser, like so many speed cameras.

I suppose I could slow down when I'm in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night... When I'm out driving to work at 4:00am, I guess I could do 40 instead of my usual 50. But, no. It makes no difference and gets me to work faster. Further, it's all straight-- no cars around until I get near the 101/202 interchange.

I'll never play along with these nannying devices.

Why?

Because one of the most favorite things I get to see is an outsmarted, ineffective bureaucrat whose big brother schemes are thwarted by the common Joe Citizen.

That's why.

I will NEVER follow nicely in line and fill their coffers under the guise of "protecting our safety."

Mike
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 11:14:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By mindtrix:

They did a review of this stuff on one of the local TV stations awhile back. They tried several different products, including the spray. The spray was the only one that actually worked believe it or not.



They didn't happen to mention a brand, did they..?

Mike
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 11:37:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By ArmorerKrug:
My question is if you invoke Your RIGHT to face your accuser are they going to bring the camera in to testify against you? That is presuming that your RIGHT to face your accuser stipulates the accuser has a face. I am not defending the speeders by any means but "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" can't remember who said that but it was a forefather. Do we sacrifice our RIGHTS for safer drive to work. It doesn't balance out for me. Just MHO



The city or state is accusing you. They have photgraphic evidence.
The above argument doesn't make sense. You rob a conveince clerk, shoot him dead right in front of the security camera and then run out. So the state can't try you for the crime because the only evidence they have is the security camera?
Like I said before, that's why the trial would be The State of Arizona vs. so and so. The State is your accuser.



I'm a fan of the Red Light running camera's, but the Photo Radar is nothing but a revenue source. One of the biggest problems I have with the system that hasn't been addressed yet is the diversion of "tax dollars" directly to private firms. My other gripe is that the ticket the city mails you is not proper service. Back in college I was a process server and the company I worked for contracted with a few of the cities to serve the photo radar tickets. If that ticket is not served personally or signed for through certified mail it is not good service and should be thrown out of court. I admit I have received a couple of Scottsdale tickets in the mail from photo radar infractions. I toss them in the garbage. A process server comes to my door a couple of times in the evening and rings the door bell. I don't open the door and don't say a word, I know the game. Eventually they drop it because it cost too much money to try and properly serve someone. My last grip is the way traffic flows around a photo radar area. If everyone is driving speed limit or even 5 over, everyone slow down to 10 under and it creates this bottle neck in traffic. As soon as you know your past the photo radar area it's off to the races...until the next photo radar enforcement area.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 11:49:14 AM EST
My biggest beef is when cities <COUGH>...tempe...<COUGH> place portable Photo Radars on streets, and then lower the speed limit 10 MPH.

Grrrr.....
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 12:16:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By prebans:

Originally Posted By mindtrix:

They did a review of this stuff on one of the local TV stations awhile back. They tried several different products, including the spray. The spray was the only one that actually worked believe it or not.



They didn't happen to mention a brand, did they..?

Mike



Not that I can recall...
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 4:49:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
My biggest beef is when cities <COUGH>...tempe...<COUGH> place portable Photo Radars on streets, and then lower the speed limit 10 MPH.

Grrrr.....



Give me a break. Tempe posts a sign a block before you enter the HOT ZONE. PHOTO RADAR AHEAD!" You have to have your head in your ass to get foto tagged for speeding in TEMPE.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 6:14:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By markm:

Yup. I watched some poor fucking idiot on a bicycle get hit by a red light running fuck a few weeks ago at 44th street and McDowell.




No offense, but why do you call an innocent victim a "poor f#@$ing idiot"? Do you just like to hear yourself cuss and demean or did you feel he somehow deserved it?
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 6:53:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By mylhouse:

Originally Posted By markm:

Yup. I watched some poor fucking idiot on a bicycle get hit by a red light running fuck a few weeks ago at 44th street and McDowell.




No offense, but why do you call an innocent victim a "poor f#@$ing idiot"? Do you just like to hear yourself cuss and demean or did you feel he somehow deserved it?



I have come to the conclusion that he is just a retard.



Have a nice day.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 6:54:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/28/2004 6:55:32 PM EST by markm]

Originally Posted By mylhouse:
No offense, but why do you call an innocent victim a "poor f#@$ing idiot"? Do you just like to hear yourself cuss and demean or did you feel he somehow deserved it?




No offense, but you weren't there. The bicyclist was half at fault. He turned left in front of oncoming traffic. I watched him follow the car in front of him without even looking for oncoming traffic. The law states that you may make a left turn when it is safe to do so. Although the driver ran the Red, Both were in the wrong.

It is the most horrible thing I have ever witnessed.
Link Posted: 7/28/2004 7:40:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By markm:
No offense, but you weren't there. The bicyclist was half at fault. He turned left in front of oncoming traffic. I watched him follow the car in front of him without even looking for oncoming traffic. The law states that you may make a left turn when it is safe to do so. Although the driver ran the Red, Both were in the wrong.




Oh, he was one of those cyclists that acts like a car and rides in the left turn lane instead of staying on the sidewalk or in the gutter? I guess he was an idiot then. Carry on...
Link Posted: 7/29/2004 12:25:01 PM EST
Yes, but he wasn't one of those Lance Armstrong wannabee homos. I don't even know that he could speak english. It was a total Darwin Award attempt, but I still felt bad for the fool.
Link Posted: 7/29/2004 12:56:22 PM EST
The 101 doesn't belong to Scottsdale. DPS has enforcement rights.

FYI, 80 reservation families received a total of $200 million for lease rights for the 101.
Link Posted: 7/29/2004 2:52:53 PM EST
I'd be willing to bet that photo radar on a freeway will lead to MORE accidents.

Once you get all speeders slamming on their brakes to avoid getting tagged by photo radar, you will have some serious pile-ups that result.
Link Posted: 7/29/2004 3:15:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:


FYI, 80 reservation families received a total of $200 million for lease rights for the 101.



Huh? WTF Is that all about, I was told that the 101 was state right of way?
Link Posted: 7/29/2004 3:35:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/29/2004 3:36:42 PM EST
The Arizona Republic filed suit against the State of AZ trying to get them to disclose the names of the families. Went all the way up to the AZ Supreme Court. They didn't have to disclose the names. The IRS made some errors in taxing some of the families for this event. The event was non taxable.

The state is only leasing the reservation land which the 101 sits on. I don't know the length of the lease only the amounts involved. There are 80 families that have land which the 101 sits on. The tribe has done everything possible to keep this deal a secret.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top