• Feb 24th 2006 at 9:00AM
  • 23
The city of Scottsdale, AZ  officially flicked on its system of speed cameras last Wednesday morning at 12:01 AM, which was immediately followed by a southbound vehicle on the Loop 101 Freeway triggering the first snap. By noon the cameras had flashed their bulbs 167 times.
Scottsdale’s project follows a 31-day warning period in which 770 vehicles a day were detected going 11 mph or more over the 65 mph speed limit. That average rose to about 1,400 times a day during the weekend and holidays.

An average speeding ticket is expected to cost a Scottsdale motorist $157, which means speed camera-generated revenue may soon be able to fund Lyle Lanley’s proposed monorail.

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 9 Years Ago
      Wouldn't it be nice if they spent the same amount of resources trying to reduce the real sources of traffice fatalities and serious injury: Inattentive and impaired drivers, people driving in the fog, rain and dark with no headlights, not wearing seatbelts, tailgating, changing lanes with no signal, cruising the left lane of the Interstate for no reason*, unsafe merging to name a few.

      The guy who cruising along on a sunny day at 67 with seatbelt on and both hands on the wheel isn't a threat. The guy in the left lane in the fog with no lights on talking on his cellphone is. Where's the high tech effort behind getting HIM off the road?

      Speeding is easy money, so law enforcement abandons real traffic safety for the lure of budgetary bliss. That's a shame.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Yes. This device may be churning out tickets like a SPAMBot server spews junk email, but it will be interesting to see how many of these tickets hold up to the litmus test when they are challenged in court. There are just too many legal loopholes for this to hold up. I don't think this is going to be the failsafe solution they think it's going to be.
      • 9 Years Ago
      I live in Tempe right now, getting a "Design Management" degree from Arizona State University. When I first got here, I was bombarded with news about the loop 101 and 202's major traffic problem (being from New Jesrey my whole life the "traffic" they are quoting is nothing). almost ALL of the accidents on the highways here are linked to someway in speeding... because of the DESERT Scottsdale is built in, there is almost never any fog; not since I've been in Tempe have I seen any fog. As far as people talking or reading the paper, or generaly not driving, I agree, there must be something done to get these people off of the road. Thankfully my home state of New Jersey has passed a cell phone ban when driving. The crappy part about NJ's law, is that it is a SECONDARY violation, so you have to be speeding, or have a tail light out, first. If none of you guys have been or live in the greater city of Phoenix (Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendage, etc) then go and see for your self just how stupid people can be behind the wheel.

      Forget about the high ways for a second, I walk to class everyday at different times (morning, noon and night) and I have almost gotten run over by people driving cars while speeding, or not watching the road. I was not j-walking, nor was I not watching traffic as I crossed the stree. I always wait for the cross signal, and look both ways. The cities in this area are doomed to be over worked with giving out tickets. the camras are a good way for the cities' cops get the funding they need to stop real crime. click the link below to read about a hostage crysis last night here in Phoenix.

      • 9 Years Ago
      I got a ticket showing that I ran a toll booth in northern NJ. Given that the car was in Georgia with my daughter at college and neither of us had driven in the state of New Jersey in at least two years, I was a little disturbed about being ordered to pay a fine.

      I called (long distance, of course on my nickel) several times and finally found out the offending car was a black Mercedes. The picture of the car's rear-end made it obvious... long horizonal tail lights are not a Subaru hallmark. Fine, I thought... not even close to the gray Subaru my kid drove. After more threats of bench warrants I faxed (again, on my time and my money) proof that my car was not at fault. More threats from New Jersey about past due payments. Another call, another fax until finally the problem went away.

      I estimate I spent five bucks in phone and fax charges and, more importantly, a couple hours of my time refuting charges that never should have been levied. Technology is a wonderful thing, but when it's applies in a careless manner it becomes a burden on the innocent.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Before they went into effect on the 22nd, I used to speed by them just to set them off.

      It's pretty hard to get caught, everyone slows down as you approach them and so it is hard to maintain a speed over 70.

      Is there someone here suggesting that people can't live free of religion?

      No wonder religion gets relegated to obsurity after enough time has elapsed in most countries.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Pointing out that none of us have a right to "speed" in and of itself is asinine. Any form of transport requires speed, does it not? Rate of speed is what we are discussing, and it has been shown time and time agian that limits are not set at the level that is found to be safe by engineers, but at a rate that is more likely to make violaters out of sane motorists.

      The term "speeding" sounds to me a bit like a word children would use on a playground to describe another that broke a rule in a hopskotch game. Arent we all speeding? Its as if they made a law against walking and handed out "stepping" violations. How do we become convinced that transporting ourselves in a superior manner (faster)is undesirable? Maybe it has something to do with the financial raping.

      Another thought on the so called right to speed. Who is better able to judge what a safe speed is at any given moment than the driver of the vehicle? NOBODY in my opinion.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Forget the ACLU, where is the NRA and a little target practice.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Last I heard the top speed they had clocked was 133 MPH.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Jesus f***ing Christ.

      I didn't reaize that all other forms of crime had been taken care of and solved and now they put resources towards new ways of bullying motorists.

      Attack me if you will for "questioning the rights of cops." In Texas, the cops operate under this backwoods-country-bumpkin-law system where the judges are weekend drinking buddies with the sheriffs/cops/deputies...and it goes on.... good luck fighting a ticket in this city. They have almost unlimited power.
      • 9 Years Ago
      As Chappy (#7) reiterated, this only tickets drivers going 11+ mph over the speed limit: that's 76 in a 65 zone. You're not going to get ticket for going 67 Bernie (#13). I don't have a problem with that. Hopefully it will let traffic police spend more time looking for aggressive/drunk/stupid drivers.
      • 9 Years Ago
      They tried this in Denver a little while back and the problem ended up being enforcement. If the speeder ignored the ticket that was mailed to them, Colorado law required that a real person deliver another copy to them face to face before they were prosecuted. So people began ignoring the tickets left and right and there wasn't enough manpower to hand-deliver the tickets. As far as I know, the program is now obsolete, thank goodness.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Funny i always thought it was freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion...
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X