Loop 101 Speed Enforcement Cameras "Cut Down On Speeders; Reduce Serious Wrecks"

Let the Laura Bush vs. Everyone Else flame war begin!

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news...o03-ON-CP.html

Scottsdale's Loop 101 speed-enforcement cameras met city officials'
expectations in slowing drivers and reducing the severity of freeway
collisions during the technology's 2006 debut, according to a
preliminary report released Wednesday.The early data, part of an
ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
serious wrecks.

Scottsdale officials will continue to work this winter with the Arizona
departments of Public Safety and Transportation, in addition to other
agencies, to determine if the positive early feedback could make the
cameras a permanent fixture on the state's freeways.

A final report by ASU traffic expert Simon Washington will not be
complete until this spring, though the Scottsdale City Council will
review Washington's early findings Jan. 16.

The early numbers also estimate as many as 1,260 drivers are now
speeding daily through Scottsdale's seven-mile test stretch between
Scottsdale Road and Shea Boulevard - an increase of more than 850
percent from the 130 drivers caught daily, on average, before the
cameras were switched off in October after a $1.4 million nine-month
test.

"Detections are still increasing at those locations on the Loop 101,"
Washington said. "More and more drivers are exceeding 76 mph."

The freeway cameras at six locations along Scottsdale's stretch of the
Loop 101 are still collecting freeway data as Washington and his team
complete their findings. Oct. 23 was the last day citations were issued
to drivers clocked at 76 mph or faster.

Washington conducted three different analyses of the Loop 101, looking
at freeway driver behavior before, during and after the program, taking
various factors into account - such as population growth, slow rush
hour traffic, and other changes since 2001.

"These are our best estimates as to how the program benefits Arizona,"
Washington said. "We've made a 6.5-mile stretch of the Loop 101 a lot
safer, but what about the rest of the freeway?"

According to Washington's preliminary report:


· The mean speed of drivers on Scottsdale's camera-controlled stretch
of the freeway dropped by 10 mph, from 74 mph to 64 mph under
photo-enforcement.


· Depending on the type of wreck, the total number of collisions was
reduced by as much as 70 percent based on a comparison to a comparable
stretch of the Loop 101 in the West Valley.


· Injuries from rear-end collisions and sideswipe incidents were
down, which could translate to more than $45 million saved on accident
damage per year.

Washington added that his team is still collecting speed and crash data
from other parts of the Loop 101, and will update the numbers this
spring.

In fact, much of Scottsdale's program is still in flux months after the
last speeding citations was captured on digital video.

As many as 11,000 freeway photo-enforcement tickets are still pending,
according to Scottsdale City Court Administrator Janet Cornell, and
Scottsdale has collected nearly $1 million from the program after
expenses.

State officials have collected more than $2.3 million in surcharges
from freeway photo-enforcement tickets through November.

DPS Cmdr. Tom Woodward, who oversees East Valley highway patrols, said
he hopes, if the technology is proven effective, that the state will
take control of the program from Scottsdale.

However, he added there needs to be an efficient way DPS patrols can
avoid being flashed by the cameras while speeding to emergency calls.

"It has become a big deterrent for our officers working in that area,"
Woodward said.

"We haven't put out (or commented) a lot because we didn't want to rush
to judgment until we could see some statistics."

Jason Pawloski wrote:
> Let the Laura Bush vs. Everyone Else flame war begin!
>
> http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news...o03-ON-CP.html
>
> Scottsdale's Loop 101 speed-enforcement cameras met city officials'
> expectations in slowing drivers and reducing the severity of freeway
> collisions during the technology's 2006 debut, according to a
> preliminary report released Wednesday.The early data, part of an
> ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
> photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
> year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
> serious wrecks.
>

This is OK but it would be a lot more effective if they combined it
with automatic license suspension for those caught. Stop coddling these
killers and maimers.

In article .com>, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
> photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
> year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
> serious wrecks.

And in a similiar pulled out the ass number, the photo enforcement can
cost them money from more less severe collisions, traffic tie ups,
tickets, and insurance surcharges.

> The early numbers also estimate as many as 1,260 drivers are now
> speeding daily through Scottsdale's seven-mile test stretch between
> Scottsdale Road and Shea Boulevard - an increase of more than 850
> percent from the 130 drivers caught daily, on average, before the
> cameras were switched off in October after a $1.4 million nine-month
> test.

In other words, the speed limit is so low normally everyone exceeds it.

> "Detections are still increasing at those locations on the Loop 101,"
> Washington said. "More and more drivers are exceeding 76 mph."

So what?

> · The mean speed of drivers on Scottsdale's camera-controlled stretch
> of the freeway dropped by 10 mph, from 74 mph to 64 mph under
> photo-enforcement.

And with it an increase in congestion no doubt.

> · Depending on the type of wreck, the total number of collisions was
> reduced by as much as 70 percent based on a comparison to a comparable
> stretch of the Loop 101 in the West Valley.

Misleading. Compare the same road before and after cameras. Not this road
to that road. I smell a rat.

> · Injuries from rear-end collisions and sideswipe incidents were
> down, which could translate to more than $45 million saved on accident
> damage per year.

Ass pulled number.

> As many as 11,000 freeway photo-enforcement tickets are still pending,
> according to Scottsdale City Court Administrator Janet Cornell, and
> Scottsdale has collected nearly $1 million from the program after
> expenses.

Which is the reason they exist.

> State officials have collected more than $2.3 million in surcharges
> from freeway photo-enforcement tickets through November.

Which is the reason they exist.

> DPS Cmdr. Tom Woodward, who oversees East Valley highway patrols, said
> he hopes, if the technology is proven effective, that the state will
> take control of the program from Scottsdale.

I wonder if he was one of the cops that sped through the camera traps in
a marked patrol car but of course wasn't ticketed... special people ya
know.

> However, he added there needs to be an efficient way DPS patrols can
> avoid being flashed by the cameras while speeding to emergency calls.

Those lights on the roof.... oh that's right cops like to drive fast just
because and be able to say they were on a call.... the camera's time
stamp kinda prevents that.

> "It has become a big deterrent for our officers working in that area,"
> Woodward said.

I imagine.... just think, they can't speed without risking getting caught
and looking like the hypocrites they are.

"Jason Pawloski" > wrote

The early data, part of an
ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
serious wrecks.

That would be a great thing if the insurance companies passed along the
savings to their customers. I don't see that happening.

Just MHO based on past experiences with insurance companies.

Steve

"Steve B" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jason Pawloski" > wrote
>
> The early data, part of an
> ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
> photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
> year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
> serious wrecks.

I'm always suspicious about these types of findings. Typically they're used
as an excuse to tax/steal from us more under the guise of
safety/kids/elderly (whatever you want to toss in there to where you're a
bad person for disagreeing/questioning it).

They don't seem to be broadcasting the 'red-light cameras aren't showing a
decrease in accidents' much, though. Some places are taking them out but I
think it has to do more with unfavorable contracts for the city (less
revenue for them - more for the camera operators) than safety.

If they *really* wanted to make things safer they'd give you:
* variable speed limits based on traffic/weather conditions
* real speed limits - not the "oh, it's marked 55MPH but it's safe at 65MPH
because everyone else is doing it and they won't ticket you until 70MPH
anyway". Really, if it's posted at 55MPH and everyone normally does 65-70
any given day and there aren't problems then 65-70 really should be the
speed limit.
* synchronized traffic lights (instead of red-light cameras)
* actually enforcing the 'real' speed limits

I think that the worst thing they could do from a revenue generating stand
point is to effectively enforce the speed limits. If you know that 55 is the
limit (and it really is based on safety) and doing 56 will get you pulled
over then you wouldn't pass 55. If most people obeyed that law, though, the
ticket revenue would go down. What is best is if they sort-of enforce the
arbitrary low limit so that they get the max return on tickets. You want
people speeding so that you can still go fishing for them (under the guise
of safety). It also helps on 'crack-down' weekends (like Memorial Day, Labor
Day, etc.) for revenue generation.

Anyway, if they gave us real limits and enforced them, then when you saw a
cop you'd likely think, "Wow - cop - glad to see him out here!," rather
than, "Crap - cop! let me hit the brakes so I'm not speeding."

Basically, I don't think the governments are looking out for our best
interests like they claim to be when they quote these studies.

Brad

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Jason Pawloski
said in rec.autos.driving:
> Scottsdale's Loop 101 speed-enforcement cameras met city officials'
> expectations in slowing drivers and reducing the severity of freeway
> collisions during the technology's 2006 debut, according to a
> preliminary report released Wednesday.The early data, part of an
> ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
> photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
> year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
> serious wrecks.

And just how much did the insurance industry pay the ASU "researchers,"
to tell that blatent lie? These cameras are not saving the drivers a
damn thing. Now the insurance companies, OTOH will be making out like
the bandits they are....

--
Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR shows us all - yet again -
what an idiot it really is:

"Radios shouldn't be in cars either. Only an idiot would argue that."
--laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, 8/5/06
Ref:http://tinyurl.com/hwevv
Message ID:

In article >,
Brad Bishop > wrote:
>"Steve B" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jason Pawloski" > wrote
>>
>> The early data, part of an
>> ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
>> photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
>> year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
>> serious wrecks.
>
>I'm always suspicious about these types of findings. Typically they're used
>as an excuse to tax/steal from us more under the guise of
>safety/kids/elderly (whatever you want to toss in there to where you're a
>bad person for disagreeing/questioning it).

I didn't find a copy of the ASU draft study the city bought.
The $45 million figure is obviously too high for the 6.5 mile
segment alone but if it is the benefit of a hypothetical
statewide program then it shows the cost of cameras to
greatly exceed the benefit.

According to this page
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1367.asp
the cameras are costing drivers over $35 million
per year in fines, not counting other costs.
Last night's press release estimated the cost to
drivers at $4.4 million per year.

6.5 miles of busy urban freeway carries on the order
of 200 million off-peak vehicle-miles per year. The
accident rate is about 300 per year. If speed cameras
made 100 accidents not happen then the average accident
would be worth half a million dollars to reach the ASU
figure. It is possible that the cost to drivers even
exceeds $45 million per year for just the 6.5 mile test
segment.

--
John Carr )

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> "Jason Pawloski" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >"Detections are still increasing at those locations on the Loop 101,"
> >Washington said. "More and more drivers are exceeding 76 mph."
>
> Get a clue, asshole - the speed limit is set too low.
>
> AZ actually has a law REQUIRING speed limits on rural Interstates to
> be set according to the 85th percentile. The problem, of course, is
> that Loop 101 is an URBAN freeway, so the authorities can legally
> underpost the limit.
>
> If they would set the speed limit correctly in the first place,
> compliance would improve. But, of course, they want REVENUE, not
> compliance.
>
> >As many as 11,000 freeway photo-enforcement tickets are still pending,
> >according to Scottsdale City Court Administrator Janet Cornell, and
> >Scottsdale has collected nearly $1 million from the program after
> >expenses.
> >
> >State officials have collected more than $2.3 million in surcharges
> >from freeway photo-enforcement tickets through November.
>
> And the local politicians are spooging.
>
> >However, he added there needs to be an efficient way DPS patrols can
> >avoid being flashed by the cameras while speeding to emergency calls.
> >
> >"It has become a big deterrent for our officers working in that area,"
> >Woodward said.
>
> BWAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
> "Responding to calls" MY ASS!!! Your boys just don't like being held
> to the same ridiculous standards as everyone else. They want to speed
> with impunity, just like they did before the cameras were installed.
>
> It would serve the cops right if the cameras nabbed cops who speed
> and, if a cross-check with dispatch records shows that they were NOT
> responding top an emergency call at the time, they have to pay the
> fine. Now THAT would really improve safety on the roads!

There was an article in the AZ Republic several months ago (which I
posted to mtr) about how cops were getting nailed by these speeding
cameras (although I think it was the off-freeway RADAR enforcement, not
the non-radar freeway enforcement). They said that they would start
"investigating" these incidences, and if they found, for instance, it
was just a cop about to go to lunch, then they would give him a ticket.

The police policing the police. Wow. I wonder how many cops actually
got a ticket?

Jason

The police policing the police. Wow. I wonder how many cops actually
got a ticket?

Jason

(my reply)

If you bet any number higher than zero, I'll gladly bet against you. -Dave

On 3 Jan 2007 20:03:01 -0800, "Jason Pawloski" >
wrote:

>Let the Laura Bush vs. Everyone Else flame war begin!
>
>http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news...o03-ON-CP.html
>
>Scottsdale's Loop 101 speed-enforcement cameras met city officials'
>expectations in slowing drivers and reducing the severity of freeway
>collisions during the technology's 2006 debut, according to a
>preliminary report released Wednesday.The early data, part of an
>ongoing analysis by a team of ASU traffic researchers, also suggests
>photo-enforcement could save Arizona drivers as much as $45 million per
>year in medical and insurance bills by decreasing the chance for
>serious wrecks.
>
>Scottsdale officials will continue to work this winter with the Arizona
>departments of Public Safety and Transportation, in addition to other
>agencies, to determine if the positive early feedback could make the
>cameras a permanent fixture on the state's freeways.
>

Like they all hadn't already made up their minds before they even
started collecting data.

>A final report by ASU traffic expert Simon Washington will not be
>complete until this spring, though the Scottsdale City Council will
>review Washington's early findings Jan. 16.
>
>The early numbers also estimate as many as 1,260 drivers are now
>speeding daily through Scottsdale's seven-mile test stretch between
>Scottsdale Road and Shea Boulevard - an increase of more than 850
>percent from the 130 drivers caught daily, on average, before the
>cameras were switched off in October after a $1.4 million nine-month
>test.
>
>"Detections are still increasing at those locations on the Loop 101,"
>Washington said. "More and more drivers are exceeding 76 mph."
>
>The freeway cameras at six locations along Scottsdale's stretch of the
>Loop 101 are still collecting freeway data as Washington and his team
>complete their findings. Oct. 23 was the last day citations were issued
>to drivers clocked at 76 mph or faster.
>
>Washington conducted three different analyses of the Loop 101, looking
>at freeway driver behavior before, during and after the program, taking
>various factors into account - such as population growth, slow rush
>hour traffic, and other changes since 2001.
>
>"These are our best estimates as to how the program benefits Arizona,"
>Washington said. "We've made a 6.5-mile stretch of the Loop 101 a lot
>safer, but what about the rest of the freeway?"
>

They must have gotten preliminary data suggesting it was causing
accidents in the adjacent sections but are trying to figure out a way
to hide that fact.

>According to Washington's preliminary report:
>
>
>· The mean speed of drivers on Scottsdale's camera-controlled stretch
>of the freeway dropped by 10 mph, from 74 mph to 64 mph under
>photo-enforcement.
>

Which means time wasted on the highway. Will that wasted time be
included in their financial impact analysis??

>
>· Depending on the type of wreck, the total number of collisions was
>reduced by as much as 70 percent based on a comparison to a comparable
>stretch of the Loop 101 in the West Valley.
>

What horse manure. The traffic on the 101 in the west side is a
completely different type of people. If you know the socio-economic
setup of the valley you know that Scottsdale is where all the money is
and the 101 on the west side serves a lot of Mexican slums.


>
>· Injuries from rear-end collisions and sideswipe incidents were
>down, which could translate to more than $45 million saved on accident
>damage per year.
>
>Washington added that his team is still collecting speed and crash data
>from other parts of the Loop 101, and will update the numbers this
>spring.
>
>In fact, much of Scottsdale's program is still in flux months after the
>last speeding citations was captured on digital video.
>
>As many as 11,000 freeway photo-enforcement tickets are still pending,
>according to Scottsdale City Court Administrator Janet Cornell, and
>Scottsdale has collected nearly $1 million from the program after
>expenses.
>
>State officials have collected more than $2.3 million in surcharges
>from freeway photo-enforcement tickets through November.
>
>DPS Cmdr. Tom Woodward, who oversees East Valley highway patrols, said
>he hopes, if the technology is proven effective, that the state will
>take control of the program from Scottsdale.
>

Yeah, that will make it easier for them to bury any photos of the LEO
speeding.


>However, he added there needs to be an efficient way DPS patrols can
>avoid being flashed by the cameras while speeding to emergency calls.
>
>"It has become a big deterrent for our officers working in that area,"
>Woodward said.
>

I don't understand this concern at all. If they are speeding they
should be ticketed. If it's not safe for me to speed it's not safe
for them to speed. This "..going to a call.." excuse is bull****.
Several hundred drivers should not be endangered so some donut addled
DPS officer can rush to an accident that's already happened. All they
do is create more tie up when they get there. These clowns have taken
as long as over 8 hours to investigate an accident while keeping an
entire freeway closed. What's the financial impact of that
Simonasshole Wassholeton.

>"We haven't put out (or commented) a lot because we didn't want to rush
>to judgment until we could see some statistics."