I don’t believe that everyone knows where every speed trap is, drives slowly by every potential trap, and that only out-of-towners get caught. I’m not surprised there is a speed trap website, but I’d wager good money that you’re in a tiny minority of the population that reads it, and even better money that it doesn’t list all the potential speed traps in a given community.
In any case, what has to be explained by you is the observable phenomenon that people regulate their speed based on the speed limit, staying within a set range beyond the limit regardless of what it is. I believe this is the result of drivers’ knowledge that speed limits are enforced. What causes this, in your view? People just voluntarily stay within 5-7mph of the limit?
So what? Why is it bad to incentivize the police to enforce the law? That objection only makes sense if you start with the premise that enforcing the speed limit ought not be a priority.
Yes. There is a “natural” speed for every road, and traffic tends to migrate toward it. This is the explanation for the setting of speed limits on roads to the 85th percentile, i.e., much lower than the speed capabilities of the road. On the interstates it is even more arbitrary than that, but because it is lower than the “natural” speed of the road it will always be exceeded.
It ought not be a priority. And as far as “incentivizing the police” to catch speeders, why not set a bounty for other crimes? No, there’s no possibility for abuse or corruption there, none whatsoever. :dubious:
There sure as hell is with traffic enforcement. I’m sure you’ve heard of the alleged “quota” system. Even if you discount that, there is no mistaking that a police officer who comes in from his shift doing traffic enforcement with nothing to show for it will be perceived as not doing his job, just as it would be with you at your job. But hey, what could be easier than “manufacturing” a few violations, because even if you show up to challenge a ticket the judge almost always sides with the police officer. It’s an almost guaranteed conviction.
That’s what happens when you “incentivize” traffic cops.
This claim is easily disproven by the fact that different states have different speed limits for the same types of roads, and yet the phenomenon holds true in any state. Drive across the country some time and note how the speed of interstate traffic changes at the state line.
I guess without some kind of controlled study we’re not going to persuade each other. So perhaps we can just agree to disagree about why people stay close to the speed limits.
The police get direct bounty for the enforcement of many crimes in the form of seized and auctioned property. And they get an indirect bounty in jurisdictions that base funding and promotion on arrest and citation statistics. It can be a problem, as you suggest.
But the notion that police are trumping up charges against motorists who aren’t actually speeding seems a little paranoid to me. From the perspective of your hypothetical greedy and corrupt police officer, it just doesn’t make sense to manufacture charges when there’s so many actual speeders, and the marginal gain of each citation is so small. (It is a much bigger problem when someone’s multi-thousand dollar drug boat might go into the police coffers, a practice to which I assume you also object.)
Probably not. However, there are ample studies about the former 55 MPH speed limit and why nobody adhered to it, and I suspect that the results would hold true at higher speeds as well. Truth is, you would have to be going extremely fast to overdrive the capabilities of interstate highways, but those capabilities are tempered by the amount of traffic on them, so at some point it becomes as much an exercise in driver psychology as it is pure engineering.
Indeed.
I linked you to the sordid story of New Rome, Ohio further up in this thread. It might not make sense, but it happens, and every state has their archetypal jerkwater speed trap that does the same thing. I suggest that local law enforcement is much more prone to corruption than state law enforcement, but I do not believe that state police forces are immune to it. They want the ticket money, too, and they prove it by going after people who warn others to slow down.
I don’t have the ability to determine how fast the drivers going the other way are driving, but I do have the ability to give them the heads-up so that they don’t get whacked with a hefty fine for something as nebulous as a speeding ticket for something that is well within the normal, expected behavior on a given road. Perhaps I might aid someone speeding excessively once in a while, but those people invariably get caught anyway. I’m aiming to help the average guy who gets arbitrarily picked off.
The existence of the law is not the problem. Why they passed the law is. I would submit it is to protect revenues. If they want people to slow down, flashing light would accomplish that. They should just have cars flashing their lights on and off. Then everybody would be happy.
:dubious: As opposed to pulling out into traffic with lights flashing and driving 100 mph to catch up to someone speeding? I’ve almost hit one of these knights-in-white-horsepower who thought the laws of physics didn’t apply to them.
Not having read all the previous threads, I’d say a legit defense is to be driving a particular brand of auto w electrical problems (including the headlights) <cough> F---- <cough>.
For that matter, how do you even know it is a speed trap? You yourself mentinoed a case where the police on the road appeared to have been on a different sort of business.
Just because the police’s presence is communicating with you in an unclear manner does not mean you can not communicate- in binary code no less- with other drivers.
We had ostensibly the same debate in my town regarding DUI checkpoints, combined with saturation patrols on NYE.
Probably every officer in town was working overtime all night.
Number of DUI arrests was 0. There were a few driers caught with no license, one guy with a gun of some sort. That is it. A normal night in other words.
Who is paying for that expense?
Certainly not the drivers that got caught, as there weren’t any.
Be my guest if that is what you want to communicate.
If your repeated flashing for an extended period of time becomes a safety issue, then there are laws to deal with that. One flash for 1/2 second of indeterminate content is not a safety issue.
I think what he was suggesting - but didn’t say outright - is that the cops should be rolling around in traffic if they want to slow it down. That would slow it down wherever they go, but probably reduce the number of tickets written. Same cop, same shift. Which way serves the public safety of getting people to slow down and stay slowed down? Why is that one traded for the method that doesn’t really slow people down for but a bit, and results in revenue for the town? That is what he was getting at I suppose.
In California, I believe the speed limit is supposed top be set where 85% of the traffic travels, by specific and prior survey before speed traps can be placed.
Were there no speed limits at all, traffic would still cluster according to the same sort of distribution of speeds, based on the traffic, road, and weather conditions.
Can you assert otherwise without claiming that people would drive random speeds rather than in some sort of normal (or similar) distribution about a mean?
It becomes an indirect tax - again here, in CA, the cost of a ticket is roughly triple the fine, and that is before insurance or driving school kick in. Not only is it a tax, but a regressive one at that.
What other methods of communication among drivers would you prohibit> Hand turn signals? Flipping the bird? A friendly wave? The “I think it is your turn to go through the 4 way stop now” dance?
Would you object if I sold and marketed a little radio device that ,you push the button to warn people traveling on the same road as you, and they could do the same? In theory this could be done with cell phones with GPS enabled. Hello IPhone App!
What is the difference really? None at all to me.
Do you object to the method of communication or to the message?
I don’t have time to respond more fully at the moment, but just to be clear, I wasn’t taking a position on the constitutionality of prohibiting the signaling of other drivers. I was just addressing the notion that speed traps serve no beneficial purpose greater than that served by signaling.
I think I have two answers to this question: The theoretical “perfect world” answer, and the real world answer.
Theoretical Rantasy World Answer: Driving above the speed limit is illegal. In order to catch people committing illegal acts, the police naturally need to remain inconspicuous. Alerting criminals to the presence of the police is wrong, and should be illegal too.
Real World Answer:
It’s clear that speed limits are not set at the levels the general public wants. If they were, you’d see something like 20% of the people on the highway exceeding the limit, as opposed to the current 80% or more.
I would guess this is partly because some people drive badly and crash, partly to appease the Nervous Nellies who drive too slowly, but mainly to use motorists as a revenue source.
I’m really surprised that police departments are willing to squander public goodwill by using their authority to act as revenue collectors, but I suppose that’s another discussion for another time.
Until speed limits are set at realistic levels, and traffic enforcement is concentrated on incompetent and inconsiderate motorists instead of fast ones, I will continue to hope that we do all we can to alert our fellow motorists whenever there is someone lying in wait to steal their money.
That is not even a good theory. Otherwise police would not wear uniforms or have marked vehicles. They would operate like that Iranian force, whatzitcalled again?
“Driving above the speed limit” is not illegal without exceptions by the way. I am sure you can think of lots of examples.
It is the job of the police to identify cases that they think will hold up in court, and to be judged on their ability to do that consistently.
It is also the job of police not to toss everyone in jail or eveninto the criminal justice system,but to do what they can to influence people to not risk getting caught in the first place. This is called “deterrence”.
Sitting on the side of the road, in plain or non-plain sight, and allowing drivers to signal the risk clearly has a deterrent effect. No one here as argued otherwise.
Some have argued that the deterrent effect lasts only until the immediate risk is gone. Maybe. Maybe not.
But it doesn’t matter, even if true.
As a society, we certainly could grant police additional power and authority such that the deterrent effect would be greater. We could have enough cops to sit on every road every mile for instance.
The only thing that keeps that from happening is that, as a society, we decide and have decided, that that would be a waste of limited resources, and counter to our values of liberty and justice.
We purposely limit the police’s ability to deter but it does not follow that we grant them unlimited ability to identify and prosecute either. We don’t live in an Orwellian 1984 type society. We could choose to, sure, but we prefer not to, because we deem the benefits better than the costs. So we have a cat-and-mouse game, that is OK.
Make no mistake about it, suggesting that every driver ought be penalized for going over the speed limit ever, is Orwellian in the extreme.
