Big Brother is fining you

Im on ur freeways
finin ur driverz

I always love the people who claim speed limits are about safety when it's clearly about revenue.

Freeper_Madness: You read it here first.

Nice troll. Let's see how many liters are on the hook tomorrow.

On the plus side, in ten years we'll have robotic cars. Then we can set them to be just below ticketing speed, and play on the internet in the back seat.

Once the cameras cost more than the revenues they generate, they'll be sold for scrap on Ebay.

eddyatwork: Freeper_Madness: You read it here first.

Nice troll. Let's see how many liters are on the hook tomorrow.

I hope it was just trolling and not more than plausible foresight...

eddyatwork: Nice troll. Let's see how many liters are on the hook tomorrow.

What's the troll? President Clinton's Interior secretary attempted to place speed cameras on national park roads (federal). If you're not familiar with the national park system, it includes busy commuter roads, e.g., on the way to the airport in Baltimore and on the way to the airport in Washington, DC. We're not talking about protecting Bambi.

see here (new window)

Considering Hillary Clinton is our next president, it's plausible foresight indeed.

Armey said Congress, not the Park Service, should decide whether cameras are used.

Hel-lo! To say the least. US Constitution section 7: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Was this revenue gathering authorized by the House of Representatives?

Taxcheat: What's the troll? President Clinton's Interior secretary attempted to place speed cameras on national park roads (federal).

Your article is from 2001 and mentions President Bush's first Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton. I'm confused, please explain using small words I can easily understand.

Thank you,
-Bowen

Bowen: Your article is from 2001

FTA: "Last year, the Park Service put cameras on some federal roads in Virginia for a demonstration project."

The article refers to the year 2000 when Interior Secretary Bruce B-B-B-Babbit started the program. Gale Norton personally ordered the cameras shut down after her confirmation as Interior Secretary. Or, in small words:

_{The article refers to the year 2000 when Interior Secretary Bruce B-B-B-Babbit started the program. Gale Norton personally ordered the cameras shut down after her confirmation as Interior Secretary.}

Government-English phrasebook:
"It's not about the revenue" = "It's about the revenue"
"I'm not going to raise taxes" = "I'm going to raise taxes"
"No, really, I'm not going to raise taxes" = "I'm going to call them user fees"
"We have to tighten our belts" = "You have to tighten your belts"
"I feel your pain" = "I see my polls"
"I'm going to cut spending" = "I'm going to run a deficit"
"I'm a fiscal conservative" = "ajhi glke amrt nv oia tfdf"

eddyatwork: I always love the people who claim speed limits are about safety when it's clearly about revenue.

they're not as much fun as the 'well if you didn't speed you wouldn't get caught' crowd.

Talk about idiots. If the state is depending on a certain level of income from speed cameras, it stands to reason that they're going to do their best to protect and maximize that source of income. Good luck getting a fair shake in traffic court with a setup like that!

Think of it as a service fee.. you want to speed? Fine, go right ahead and speed. but you have to pay the fee.

Alacritous: Think of it as a service fee.. you want to speed? Fine, go right ahead and speed. but you have to pay the fee.

And what happens when you don't speed and you STILL have to pay the fee?

Remember - traffic court is all about protecting the state's income stream. You're basically guilty until proven innocent. Do you pay the fee, or fight the Man?

<b>Weaver95:</b> <i>Do you pay the fee, or fight the Man?</i>

What's stopping you from running for office and cleaning it up?

One man CAN make a difference. <Insert dramatic theme music here>

Alacritous: <b>Weaver95:</b> <i>Do you pay the fee, or fight the Man?</i>

What's stopping you from running for office and cleaning it up?

One man CAN make a difference. <Insert dramatic theme music here>

It would be bad if I ran for office.

Alacritous: What's stopping you from running for office and cleaning it up?

Not living in Arizona might be a significant barrier to Weaver95's single-handed elimination of the Arizona speed camera program. I face the same ticket tax without representation when driving in DC and Maryland. They put the cameras in places specifically designed to nail commuters.

And don't forget that the "speeder" isn't necessarily the one that gets the ticket. Spouses, precious snoflakes, business employees, friends and others often drive cars they don't own.

so they merely CUT the budget deficit. Had they considered cutting spending?

Taxcheat: Not living in Arizona might be a significant barrier to Weaver95's single-handed elimination of the Arizona speed camera program. I face the same ticket tax without representation when driving in DC and Maryland. They put the cameras in places specifically designed to nail commuters.

THIS. I am unable to change Minnesota's inane speeding laws/fines as I am a North Dakota resident. Despite the fact that I have been fleeced by them in the past to make up for their budget deficits.

I think during the 3 days that we were in Tempe for the Insight bowl this year, we were flashed 20+ times by the speed cameras. I swear, those things go off if you're doing 5MPH over the limit. It was a rental car not in my name, so I don't really care, but it must suck to live there!

On that note, here's a fun picture of us at the game. Go Hoosiers! (I'm the second from the left)

From TFA: "A study documented a 54 percent increase in rear-end collisions and a 9 percent increase in injuries from rear-end collisions as a result of the cameras' use."

So, it's making it LESS safe than before. Great going there, Arizona.

Can u say "cash cow"?

Arizona can!

Alacritous: <b>Weaver95:</b> <i>Do you pay the fee, or fight the Man?</i>

What's stopping you from running for office and cleaning it up?

One man CAN make a difference. <Insert dramatic theme music here>

<b><big><center>FAIL</center></big></b>

King Something

The irony of your HTMfaiL is delicious.

has anyone ever thought of just spending less money?

that's another surefire way to cut a deficit.

Actually, it's not about the revenue. If it were about the revenue, they would simply impose something where you have no choice, like an income or sales tax.

With traffic laws, it's real simple. If you don't want to give the state any more of your money, don't break the law! Then they'll never see an additional dime from you.

See how easy that is? No need to thank me.

FAIL, subby.

NewsTalk: Actually, it's not about the revenue. If it were about the revenue, they would simply impose something where you have no choice, like an income or sales tax.

With traffic laws, it's real simple. If you don't want to give the state any more of your money, don't break the law! Then they'll never see an additional dime from you.

See how easy that is? No need to thank me.

FAIL, subby.

you don't read many of the news stories about traffic cams do you?

they tend to ticket people who aren't breaking the law.

Taxcheat: And don't forget that the "speeder" isn't necessarily the one that gets the ticket. Spouses, precious snoflakes, business employees, friends and others often drive cars they don't own.

I don't know about where you are, but here, if a car gets nailed by a speed camera the registered owner gets the fine, but not the points. If people are speeding in your car maybe you shouldn't let them drive it.

burndtdan: you don't read many of the news stories about traffic cams do you?

they tend to ticket people who aren't breaking the law.

Yeah, but there are people out there who really do believe that The Government can do no wrong. God only knows how in the hell they got into THIS country, but there you go.

Alacritous: I don't know about where you are, but here, if a car gets nailed by a speed camera the registered owner gets the fine, but not the points. If people are speeding in your car maybe you shouldn't let them drive it.

Land of the free, home of the brave indeed.

You mean, Arizona drivers will have to pay more attention to how fast they are going and less attention to giving the one-finger salute to snowbirds obeying the traffice laws? Shocking.

/Arizona, two-strike felon paradise

NewsTalk: Actually, it's not about the revenue. If it were about the revenue, they would simply impose something where you have no choice, like an income or sales tax.

With traffic laws, it's real simple. If you don't want to give the state any more of your money, don't break the law! Then they'll never see an additional dime from you.

See how easy that is? No need to thank me.

FAIL, subby.

See this:

Weaver95: they're not as much fun as the 'well if you didn't speed you wouldn't get caught' crowd.

Alacritous: I don't know about where you are, but here, if a car gets nailed by a speed camera the registered owner gets the fine

From the same site, in Arizona they send the white man's speeding tickets to black men!

Racist speed cameras (new window)

Taxcheat: white man's speeding tickets to black men!

Did you read the article? did you see the part where it said the white guy lied and told them he sold the car to the black guy?

Lax enforcement guidelines, sure. but hardly racist.

As far as I now and what has been reported, here in phoenix the speed cameras are set to go off at 11 mph over the posted speed limit. Even the mobile speed vans that traverse the valley flash at 11 mph over. Hell, the city is giving you 10 mph over the speed limit and it is still not fast enough for some of the drivers here. I personally don't like being passed doing 75 on a 65mph road by some driver doing 85 or more, and no I don't hang out in the left lane. It is a simple concept don't speed and the government doesn't get the 90 million dollar windfall as the article reported.

Of course you could also stop breaking the speed limit. That does quite a bit in cutting down the revenue these cameras make.

Arizona Farkers, it's up to you to emulate the British. Put a tire (tyre) on the camera add a little gasoline (petrol) and light a match. See here (new window)

I think that they serve a purpose on the 101 North and the 202 West/10 Interchange, where people seem to think that going above 90+mph during bidness hours is ok. The entitled dickheads in Scottsdale are partly to blame.

Either:



OR



Your call :-)

Kar98: Your call :-)

You forgot

Well, the options were supposed to represent either destroying or outsmarting the cameras.

I suppose I know why the local ones are mounted in clusters and bundles some of them indeed pointing at each other.

Freeper_Madness: Pretty soon, I can see liberals in congress setting up FEDERAL speed-cameras at various points on interstate highways. So many state crimes have somehow become federal crimes anyway. Why not speeding?

Naturally, it will be 'for the children', to 'combat Global WarmingTM', 'reduce dependence on foreign oil', to 'protect the environment', etc.


You read it here first.

Oh, it's not just the liberals pulling shiat like this: republicans love stuff like this because well, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

Alacritous: you want to speed? Fine, go right ahead and speed. but you have to pay the fee.

I'd rather see the police go after the a-holes who tailgate drivers in the right lane (or single lane roads) who want to go the speed limit.

Anyway, I hope Jon Corzine (NJ Gov-Kill the Middle Class with Tolls) doesn't get any ideas

Laser pointers on tripods mounted a few hundred yards away ought to do the trick.

Hey Freeper_Madness, too bad for your theory that Az is a red state. The blue Governor signed the bill. The bill was passed by the red house and senate.

That said our blue governor is a tool and former prosecutor and has never met a privacy right she can get behind.

FTFA: Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano announced on Friday her expectation that the state's new freeway speed cameras would generate $90 million in net profit for fiscal year 2009, plus $34 million for the private companies selected to operate the program. In the following year, what the state labels "non tax increase revenue generation" will jump to $120 million, plus $45 million more for the ticket vendors, for a total of $165 million.

Insurance companies such as the American Automobile Association (AAA) have backed Arizona's speed camera program. Each photo ticket in the state carries license points allowing insurance companies to raise rates on ticket recipients, generating hundreds of millions in additional revenue. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has also called for expansion of photo ticketing programs nationwide.

So basically this is easy money for A) the state, B) the private contractors running this scam, and C) the insurance agencies.

Joe Q. Public gets the royal screwjob.

Freeper_Madness: You read it here first.

Duly noted. You hereby receive full credit for your asinine comments.