I have an aquaintance who was a CHP officer. He mentioned that doing short “sprints” 90-100 mph for a few miles is a nifty way to catch speeders going 75-80 in 65 zones.
If you are travelling at the speed limit you will never catch one unless you are on the side of the road clocking them. IIRC most highway patrol types determine speed by pacing, which means they take a few minutes following the car they are checking or need to get close enough or on a proper LOS to get a moving doppler radar hit off of them. They would not be running with lights or siren because they are not in an “emergency situation” nor do they want to alert their target of their presence.
I don’t know what CHP policy is on this but he seemed to imply it was common practice. with the AVL/GPS technology on many law enforcement vehicles today it would be a simple matter to detect and or punish officers for speeding if a dept felt they were endangering the public.
Some of it I’m sure is a matter of “whos going to pull over a cop”. I have gotten out of two tickets with my ambulance endorsement on my licence. I have heard of ambulances being pulled over by cops on two occasions, both were for blatant stupidity on the part of the ambulance driver.
*one was an unsafe lane change that forced a cop into the dirt median of a freeway, the other was using the lights to get through an intersection and then pulled into a fast food place for lunch two blocks down. A cop coming the other way followed out of curiousity only to find no emergency. In both cases the driver in question was fired.
As bsane pointed out, I think we’ve got a bit of miscommunication going on here. I didn’t mean to imply that what you said was false.
It’s all well and good to point out that traffic stops often lead to serious arrests. This is true, and certainly a valid point given the discussion. It’s a slightly different thing, however, to say, “You don’t want people to come to your house and rape your children, do you? Huh, do you, buddy?”
I know a couple of cops in private life and, in my experience, phrasing a discussion about traffic stops in terms such as these is a very “cop” thing to do (which is understandable, given that cops see despicable things on a daily basis).
Anyway, don’t be so defensive, pk.
This subject is something of a British bugbear also, although here the focus is on the recent trend towards putting automatic speed cameras at almost every troublespot on a given road.
Now (as someone who passed only his driving test one month ago!) I happen to unreservedly advocate enforcement of the speed limit by any reasonable means. A reduction in speed is genuinely the best way to ameliorate the effects of an accident or avoid it altogether, and contrary to popular belief actually reduces congestion since a driver brakes more “accurately” (ie. does not brake unnecessarily hard, the cumulative effect of which is to slow the traffic down en masse).
If hard braking is occurring near these cameras or roadside cops, it is surely the speed limit which must be changed rather than the enforcement of same which must be limited.
So, what should the motorway/highway speed limit be? In the interests of safety I would suggest 70 mph, with limits of 50 mph at points prone to congestion in order to prevent jams due to overbraking, and that everyone who breaks this Law of the Land be punished if caught.
Anyone for higher limits, with their accompanying higher death rates and congestion?
I was arrested once for an unpaid ticket. I was in a different town then the traffic violation occured so I had to wait a couple of hours for that jurisdiction to come pick me up.
The cop was a really nice guy. Handcuffed me in front as opposed to behind. Gave me cigarettes, bought me a coke and was generally a nice guy about it all. He was also married, but on that day his girlfriend was with him. I thought that was interesting. But who am i to judge? Just had to throw that worthless tidbit in. :rolleyes:
The drive was about 100 miles and the cop did between 90-100 mph the entire way. Now that I think about it, maybe he was just in a hurry to get me to the station so he and she could finish knitting a quilt or something.
It is quite interesting that the people that enforce traffic laws aren’t subject to them even when not on duty. This may not be true everywhere, but it has been in the places I’ve lived. I understand the rationale, because a cop is really never off duty. The way it is abused though has caused me to lose a lot of respect for law enforcement.
btw- I’ve discussed this with 3 or 4 cops and they all told me the same thing “I give them up to 15 mph over the speed limit and then I’ll pull them over”. Maybe they just meant on the freeway. I hope they didn’t mean residential too. Too, I don’t slow down when I see a cop unless some jerk in front of me causes me too. I drive the speed limit and may go 5 mph over at times. But generally speaking I drive in the right lane and just do the speed limit. It bothers me not if a cop is around. He can’t pull me over just for doing the speed limit. People are so paranoid. Just stay home if you can’t deal with the fact that there are traffic cops out there so the rest of us can get to where we’re going without being impeeded by you paranoid fraidy cats. :wally
If most people are breaking the speed limit, why not remove speed limits on highways in general and just have them on sections with bad road conditions?
The cops would need to make sure that people aren´t overtaking on the right though, as a highway without a speed limit needs disciplined drivers for it to work.
Speeding for convenience is not by any means a “perk” of being a cop. It’s a common abuse of the uniform. It endangers those on the road around them. Although police are trained in high-speed driving, they still present a greater risk when driving at high speeds.
In my mind, only an emergency situation can mitigate the risk of excessive speeding. Excessive, IMO, being faster than the flow of traffic on highways, or at all near residential or pedestrian areas.
Police who’ll put innocents at risk for their own convenience and call it a “perk” should probably try their hand at a less responsible career path.
Well, because a child could run out in front of you. Or a deer.
It’s in the interest of society to see that fast, heavy, blunt objects are controlled responsibly. Statistical studies have indicated that alcohol use while driving correlates with Bad Things. Empirical studies indicate that alcohol screws up your reaction time and judgement. Therefore, as a nation, we’ve decided that alcohol and driving is not allowed, which seems to me to be an appropriate measure.
You people crack me up. Ever exit behind an Orange County sheriff off the EW on 436? Didn’t think so. Do cops speed needlessly so often that it is par for the course, normal, expected?
Sure, I have no doubt that traffic violations are now a useful tool for the Police, leading to some arrests. So was the old “rubber hose and back room”. :rolleyes: Sure, sometimes traffic stops leads to arrest sfor 'real crimes". So would stopping dudes at random. So would breaking down doors at random and searching homes at random.
The point is- as SCOTUS pointed out- EVERYONE violates some minor traffic infraction whilst driving. Thus, polcie can pull over anyone anytime. This leads to racist cops pulling dudes over for being black- the infamous “DWB”.
Traffic stops have stopped being traffic enforcement for many line police, and are just an excuse to be lazy and not bother with “probable cause”.
Umm, sure- a child or a deer can jump out in front of you. So? Should we pull over anyone at anytime because of this?
