Listening to the Radio This Morning - Photo Radar Snagged 2000 Drivers in One Day on a Freeway?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Listening to the Radio This Morning - Photo Radar Snagged 2000 Drivers in One Day on a Freeway? (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:15:54 AM EDT

God it makes me sick to think about it. It has nothing to do with safety. 2000 drivers is a good $200,000 in extra revenue earned in one day if every ticket is $100 (and I have no idea what the actual ticket amount is). They'd never be able to give out that many tickets unless the photo radar was there, probably because traffic was traveling as fast as it could safely (self regulating) and an officer would see no need to stop somebody keeping up with the flow of traffic. It does nothing to stop the commission of the "crime" or violation, only bring in money.

Looks like the city of Scottsdale is one of those new "for profit" cities. Now imagine how much some other cities are making. Sure not everybody will mail in their money, but most will I bet or will pay up when the "man" catches up with them.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:17:32 AM EDT

[#1]

find out where the radar is, cover your license plate with a sign that says "Bite me!" and speed

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:18:30 AM EDT

[#2]

Go where the money is.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:18:39 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
God it makes me sick to think about it. It has nothing to do with safety. 2000 drivers is a good $200,000 in extra revenue earned in one day if every ticket is $100 (and I have no idea what the actual ticket amount is). They'd never be able to give out that many tickets unless the photo radar was there, probably because traffic was traveling as fast as it could safely (self regulating) and an officer would see no need to stop somebody keeping up with the flow of traffic. It does nothing to stop the commission of the "crime" or violation, only bring in money.

Looks like the city of Scottsdale is one of those new "for profit" cities. Now imagine how much some other cities are making. Sure not everybody will mail in their money, but most will I bet or will pay up when the "man" catches up with them.

Coming soon to a city near you.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:22:00 AM EDT

[#4]

Imagine the chaos if all 2,000 drivers challenged the tickets in court.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:22:04 AM EDT

[#5]

There is a simple way to stop this. Tell everybody to plead innocent and fight. No way they could handle 2000 court hearings per day. Most would have to be dismissed.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:23:18 AM EDT

[#6]

Probably going to have thousands of pissed off people. What a cash cow! Some places have cameras set up at intersections to get the people who go through red lights. Big brother is watching you!

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:25:24 AM EDT

[#7]

All those people coming from the Barrett Jackson auction?

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:26:02 AM EDT

[#8]

The ability to legally defeat these cameras already exists. A clear license plate cover which distorts the plate at the angle which the cameras take photos. Directly behind the car you can't tell anything’s different about the plate.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:26:47 AM EDT

[#9]

Vote the people who authorized it out of office.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:27:24 AM EDT

[#10]

How long before people start to destroy these cameras?

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:28:24 AM EDT

[#11]

major metropolitan area: 56 ina 45 = 150U$ doan ask me how I know this

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:29:24 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
How long before people start to destroy these cameras?

Well, just as soon as I get me one of them there .300 whisper uppers with a suppressor I'll...

And yes, I'm joking.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:29:33 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Imagine the chaos if all 2,000 drivers challenged the tickets in court.

In a lot of places your not allowed to fight the tickets in court.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:29:34 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
How long before people start to destroy these cameras?

they are in a pretty sturdy housing. not sure what might work?

Tannerite?

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:30:10 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Imagine the chaos if all 2,000 drivers challenged the tickets in court.

In a lot of places your not allowed to fight the tickets in court.

so much for due process.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:30:27 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
How long before people start to destroy these cameras?

With income of 200K+ per day, I think they will just buy new ones and then set traps for the people who shot up the last ones.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:31:01 AM EDT

[#17]

Buy some of the spray that will not let cameras take a picture of your plate

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:33:08 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Buy some of the spray that will not let cameras take a picture of your plate

sounds neato. Have a link?

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:33:13 AM EDT

[#19]

Destroy the careers of the people who put the cameras there in the first place.

The only way to stop this latest tax is to derail the public service aspirations of any politician who had anything to do with it.

Do some research, name a few names, and circulate the list.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:35:25 AM EDT

[#20]

They aren't actually giving out tickets yet with this bullshit photo radar, just warnings, but I think they're going to start next month.

Either way, it's total B.S.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:42:57 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Buy some of the spray that will not let cameras take a picture of your plate

sounds neato. Have a link?

It's clear enamel with glass bead. When the camers flashes, all that can be see form the plate is the glare of the flash.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:44:32 AM EDT

[#22]

This is a Democracy, it’s not like the people can’t do something about it. Things like this piss most Americans off big time, but we bitch about a little and then don’t do anything.

I don’t remember the exact figures but the combined total spending in all Federal elections in 2004 was about 2 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is in a way.

But imagine if 1% of the population (3 million) really supported a cause and were willing to spend $1,000 a year (Less than some people pay for cable.) supporting that cause.

Go ahead and subtract all of the really poor people, children, and housewives from that equation. That should still leave a million people donating money.

And a million people donating a thousand dollars a year to a cause is one billion a year or two billion every election cycle. That’s as much as the combined total spent by both Republicans and Democrats. That 1% would dominate American politics.

In this case, just imagine if everyone donated 10% of their traffic fine to the political opponents of the mayor and city council. I don’t think that many city politicians could raise $20,000 a day to counter that kind of financial firepower.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:50:45 AM EDT

[#23]

Just curious here -- for those of you who think it is BS, why do you think it is any different than getting ticketed by a cop? A violation is a violation, isn't it? Same radar is used, isn't it? If anything, the evidence is probably better than that typically gathered by a cop.

I would say I am against the red light cameras, but I don't think I am. I have long noticed a really dangerous problem with people trying to beat the light in my area and I have been hit by two people trying to beat the red light myself. One totalled my car and, if I hadn't been driving a big SUV, it probably would have killed me. So I am in favor of cracking down on the assholes who run red lights. I view them as a real hazard and, if they are that goddman stupid then the proper remedy is to allow me to legally hunt them down and shoot them right there. I will take the red light cameras as an alternative to the best plan.

I don't feel that way about speeding, so I tend to be against the speeding cameras. On the other hand, what's the difference?

Can anybody explain why any of these traffic law control methods are right or wrong?

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:51:47 AM EDT

[#24]

BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:53:27 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:53:59 AM EDT

[#26]

Here's an idea:

How about people just stay less then 10 mph over the speed limit?

The cameras only activate if you are 10 mph over or more.

radical I know.

visionary.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:54:46 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Buy some of the spray that will not let cameras take a picture of your plate

sounds neato. Have a link?

It's clear enamel with glass bead. When the camers flashes, all that can be see form the plate is the glare of the flash.

I've seen that!!!!!

Thank you.

Posted: 1/24/2006 6:58:45 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Here's an idea:

How about people just stay less then 10 mph over the speed limit?

The cameras only activate if you are 10 mph over or more.

radical I know.

visionary.

Silly suggestion. As we all know, traffic rules and regulations apply mainly to other people. If I do 75, I am making a fair judgment of the safe speed under the conditions. You, on the other hand, would be an obvious maniac at that speed.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:00:57 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

No, the speeding part is breaking the law. We're discussing ways to avoid having your license plate photographed.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:10:15 AM EDT

[#30]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/08/801.asp

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:10:40 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I would say I am against the red light cameras, but I don't think I am. I have long noticed a really dangerous problem with people trying to beat the light in my area and I have been hit by two people trying to beat the red light myself. One totalled my car and, if I hadn't been driving a big SUV, it probably would have killed me. So I am in favor of cracking down on the assholes who run red lights. I view them as a real hazard and, if they are that goddman stupid then the proper remedy is to allow me to legally hunt them down and shoot them right there. I will take the red light cameras as an alternative to the best plan.

Traffic accidents almost always increase at intersections after traffic cameras have been installed. Most likely because people are afraid of getting a ticket, so they slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow, even though they are too close to safely stop, and they have time to get through before the light turns red. The driver behind them then slams into them.

There are also cases where the yellow-light time has been set to a shorter time in order to increase fines. Nevermind that this makes the intersection more dangerous and is probably illegal.

And then there are the cases of traffic cameras intentionally set up incorrectly to give tickets to people who don't deserve them, because the companies that installed the cameras get a cut of the revenue.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:13:48 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

No, the speeding part is breaking the law. We're discussing ways to avoid having your license plate photographed.

OK, I get it. Like the difference between discussing how to murder someone and how to get away with it.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:14:37 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I would say I am against the red light cameras, but I don't think I am. I have long noticed a really dangerous problem with people trying to beat the light in my area and I have been hit by two people trying to beat the red light myself. One totalled my car and, if I hadn't been driving a big SUV, it probably would have killed me. So I am in favor of cracking down on the assholes who run red lights. I view them as a real hazard and, if they are that goddman stupid then the proper remedy is to allow me to legally hunt them down and shoot them right there. I will take the red light cameras as an alternative to the best plan.

Traffic accidents almost always increase at intersections after traffic cameras have been installed. Most likely because people are afraid of getting a ticket, so they slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow, even though they are too close to safely stop, and they have time to get through before the light turns red. The driver behind them then slams into them.

There are also cases where the yellow-light time has been set to a shorter time in order to increase fines. Nevermind that this makes the intersection more dangerous and is probably illegal.

And then there are the cases of traffic cameras intentionally set up incorrectly to give tickets to people who don't deserve them, because the companies that installed the cameras get a cut of the revenue.

There is an intersection near my work that has no all-red phase (when it is red in both directions). When one direction changes from amber to red the other changes from red to green at the same time.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:15:18 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

OK, I get it. Like the difference between discussing how to murder someone and how to get away with it.

Don't you have some granola to eat??

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:16:01 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Vote the people who authorized it out of office.

+1

Or drive the speed limit. It will not kill you.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:16:07 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

No, the speeding part is breaking the law. We're discussing ways to avoid having your license plate photographed.

OK, I get it. Like the difference between discussing how to murder someone and how to get away with it.

WTF? So you are saying it should be illeagal to leave you tailgate down if you pass a photo radar

So I guess all of us with PU need to stop and put the tailgate up when we come to one on the road.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:16:32 AM EDT

[#37]

The real problem with this is that there are cameras WITH FLASHES on one of the busiest freeways in the state. These cameras will still be functional in the evening and after dark.

It's gonna be a blood bath..... the fines they collect won't even begin to pay for the lawsuits brought against the city for wrongful death, etc......

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:17:25 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Traffic accidents almost always increase at intersections after traffic cameras have been installed. Most likely because people are afraid of getting a ticket, so they slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow, even though they are too close to safely stop, and they have time to get through before the light turns red. The driver behind them then slams into them.

Isn't that a learning curve kind of thing? If the cameras were everywhere then behavior might change for the better. (FWIW, I have been rear-ended at a stoplight more than once, with no cameras installed.)

There are also cases where the yellow-light time has been set to a shorter time in order to increase fines. Nevermind that this makes the intersection more dangerous and is probably illegal.

And then there are the cases of traffic cameras intentionally set up incorrectly to give tickets to people who don't deserve them, because the companies that installed the cameras get a cut of the revenue.

In those cases, you have a good argument for putting someone in jail. But that doesn't speak to the cases where there wasn't that kind of abuse.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:18:24 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
The real problem with this is that there are cameras WITH FLASHES on one of the busiest freeways in the state. These cameras will still be functional in the evening and after dark.

It's gonna be a blood bath..... the fines they collect won't even begin to pay for the lawsuits brought against the city for wrongful death, etc......

Wouldn't UV based cameras defeate this problem, unless you are using night vision.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:19:44 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

No, the speeding part is breaking the law. We're discussing ways to avoid having your license plate photographed.

OK, I get it. Like the difference between discussing how to murder someone and how to get away with it.

WTF? So you are saying it should be illeagal to leave you tailgate down if you pass a photo radar

So I guess all of us with PU need to stop and put the tailgate up when we come to one on the road.

In this case, you were discussing it specifically for the purpose of not getting caught while violating the law. Is that correct?

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:22:08 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's an idea:

How about people just stay less then 10 mph over the speed limit?

The cameras only activate if you are 10 mph over or more.

radical I know.

visionary.

Silly suggestion. As we all know, traffic rules and regulations apply mainly to other people. If I do 75, I am making a fair judgment of the safe speed under the conditions. You, on the other hand, would be an obvious maniac at that speed.

Interstates were designed for speeds well in excess of the posted limits (particularly in areas where it still drops to 55 MPH)

The laws of man vs. the laws of physics (and the former are guided by who gets the biggest benefits/kickbacks)

If it really was a safety issue, we wouldn't see troopers blowing past at 90+

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:22:35 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

No, the speeding part is breaking the law. We're discussing ways to avoid having your license plate photographed.

OK, I get it. Like the difference between discussing how to murder someone and how to get away with it.

WTF? So you are saying it should be illeagal to leave you tailgate down if you pass a photo radar

So I guess all of us with PU need to stop and put the tailgate up when we come to one on the road.

In this case, you were discussing it specifically for the purpose of not getting caught while violating the law. Is that correct?

I don’t think there’s ever a good analogy between ‘malum prohibitum’ (wrong because some beurocrats said so) and ‘malum in se’ (wrong because it’s bad, evil).

The murder comparison sounds off to me.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:23:07 AM EDT

[#43]

I hate Big Brother shit.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:25:01 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

So?

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:25:27 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

No, the speeding part is breaking the law. We're discussing ways to avoid having your license plate photographed.

OK, I get it. Like the difference between discussing how to murder someone and how to get away with it.

WTF? So you are saying it should be illeagal to leave you tailgate down if you pass a photo radar

So I guess all of us with PU need to stop and put the tailgate up when we come to one on the road.

In this case, you were discussing it specifically for the purpose of not getting caught while violating the law. Is that correct?

I don’t think there’s ever a good analogy between ‘malum prohibitum’ (wrong because some beurocrats said so) and ‘malum in se’ (wrong because it’s bad, evil).

The murder comparison sounds off to me.

You could say the same thing about a thread on how to grow the best marijuana. But I would bet that ‘malum prohibitum’ thread would be closed in a hurry.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:27:26 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW a PU with the tailgate down would work too.

Aren't we discussing methods to break the law here?

So?

4.) Posting comments or links in support of illegal activities including, but not limited to, threats against the life of any living person, doing harm to a state or federal official, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:29:22 AM EDT

[#47]

Photo Block

There are tons of them out there.

Posted: 1/24/2006 7:30:31 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's an idea:

How about people just stay less then 10 mph over the speed limit?

The cameras only activate if you are 10 mph over or more.

radical I know.

visionary.

Silly suggestion. As we all know, traffic rules and regulations apply mainly to other people. If I do 75, I am making a fair judgment of the safe speed under the conditions. You, on the other hand, would be an obvious maniac at that speed.

Interstates were designed for speeds well in excess of the posted limits (particularly in areas where it still drops to 55 MPH)

The laws of man vs. the laws of physics (and the former are guided by who gets the biggest benefits/kickbacks)

If it really was a safety issue, we wouldn't see troopers blowing past at 90+

So, in your view, it is something closer to breaking a tax law. Is that a fair summation?