So I was recently at social function with a number of officers when the subject of photo red lights and some “stealth” style patrol lights that are new to area arose.
I was a little taken aback by the candid nature of the conversation, where the officers readily admitted that generating revenues by tricking soccer moms doing 4mph over the limit was just as much of their strategy as catching “real” speeders/dangerous drivers.
The force (at least in my community) seems to care much more about revenue than any deterrence.
To my way of thinking, there is value in the mere presence of an officer to deter violations and foster safe behaviors (and goodwill). While I believe that entrapment style tactics are great for actual crime and drug enforcement, the idea of a fleet of officers busting anyone going 56 in a 55 on the last day of the month seems counter intuitive to “protect and serve”.
When I voiced this I was met with a bit of humor and sarcasm that this work may be predatory but that it allows then to drive chargers instead of crown Vic’s!? :smack:
Stealth is supposed to increase the deterrent value. If all police cars were covered in day-glo paint and had lights and sirens on at all times, you’d be more inclined to disregard traffic laws when you didn’t see one around, because you would KNOW there are no cops around. OTOH, If you’re not sure whether the car 50 yards behind you is a cop or not, you’re more inclined to toe the line. Since limited budgets mean that cops can’t actually be everywhere all the time, their effectiveness is maximized by fostering that uncertainty through the use of stealth tactics.
In places where it’s extra important to get motorists to slow down (e.g. at the scene of an accident), the squad car gets parked in a prominent location and the lights get turned on.
Short of meddling with the speedometer, I don’t know how you “trick” a soccer mom into going 4 over the limit.
Are you saying that police officers, in unmarked cars, are deliberately breaking the speed limit, to trick other drivers into thinking it’s okay to drive that fast?
That would be evil, breaking the law in order to enforce it, and must not be tolerated. It’s damn close to entrapment.
But if all you’re talking about a guy with a radar hiding behind a billboard…yay him. I don’t care if it’s for deterrence or for revenue: it pulls at least a few reeking jerks off the street for ten minutes. Speeding is goddamn dangerous, and I don’t even care if I’m surrendering to the cave-man impulse to punish – speeders ought to be punished.
(Also tailgaters, the bastards…)
I’m also fully in favor of red-light cameras. Just think of it as a tax on jerks. Hope you enjoyed sailing through that red light: thanks for the $75. I don’t even care if private enterprise puts up the cameras and skims off part of the profit. So long as the lights are inspected and calibrated properly.
(There were rumors that privately-owned cameras were set to be too sensitive, improperly increasing revenue. None of that. That’s just as bad as a policeman speeding.)
What do you mean tricking them? Because they’ll likely just pay the ticket without going to court? Even in the city of Pawtucket RI where they do use speeding tickets as a revenue generator I don’t think any of the cops are enough of an asshole to pull someone over for less than 5MPH over the limit.
Calm down pops… we’ll heat up your mush and change your depends, and afterward we’ll get off your lawn.
Seriously though; there’s a huge difference between some ass going 70 in a 35 weaving in and out of traffic on a rainy day, and someone going 44 in a 40 on a bright, clear day, with very little other traffic on the road and going in a straight line.
That, I think is the outrage; the cops aren’t trying to deter or nab the guys in the first example who are huge menaces to public safety, but rather they’re going after the second examples because they’re low hanging fruit, and technically breaking the law, even if there’s no real safety threat at all.
In other words, they’re handing out tickets for the sake of handing out tickets, and making it easy on themselves, instead of actually trying to do something useful like nailing the jerks who drive like crazed, cracked out monkeys with ben-gay smeared in their ass-cracks.
I don’t have a problem with red light cameras. I don’t speed and I don’t run red lights. Anyone who does do those things does them voluntarily. The city needs money; I’m in favor of them getting it from any source that isn’t my pocket.
Tailgators are much more dangerous (every day on my commute I invariably get some assglommer on my tail), but I doubt a dozen “following too closely” tickets are ever written in this county in a month, absent one of the many rear-end wrecks that I see on a regular basis, of course…
I don’t know if this qualifies as “voluntary,” but I find it somewhat easy to find myself doing 38 or 39 in a 35 zone or 73 or 74 in a 70 zone. Of course, it’s easier on the interstate to set the cruise control and not have to worry about it, but that’s not always practical.
Why are they “low hanging fruit”? Surely it’s a lot easier to prosecute someone if you catch them doing double the speed limit than someone who’s crept over?
Part of it is that when enforcement is more revenue-based than safety-based, you get the cops camping out in the places where it’s the absolute safest to speed. Like near where I am, there’s several persistent speed traps in sections of rural Interstate that are completely flat and straight. People speeding through mountainous and urban sections is way more of a safety issue, but if the cops camped out there they’d have to wait a heck of lot longer between speeders and/or write fewer lucrative 10+ over tickets.
And ditto to what John DiFool said. The main reason why speeding is pretty much the end-all of traffic enforcement these days is that it’s extremely easy to prove. Things like following too closely and aggressive or distracted driving are way bigger issues, but there isn’t a machine that handily spits out proof that a driver was doing it.
I doubt it. Part of why red light cameras are (or at least were) so politically popular is that you think of “running a red light” as someone blasting through an intersection against a signal at full speed, which is of course dangerous but hardly anyone does. But the vast, vast majority of the tickets issued by red light cameras are for things like not quite coming to a complete stop for a right-on-red or just barely mis-timing a yellow or getting stuck in an intersection while turning left. It’s stuff that isn’t particularly dangerous and which everyone does now and then if you drive enough.
In CA at least, something like 90% of those “nasty evil red light runners” are dudes who make a “rolling stop” on a right turn- they slow to a few MPH, then safely make a turn. They cause more accident than they prevent:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/right-turn-on-red
*Cities with ticket cameras sell the cameras to the public by explaining that they’ll help prevent right-angle crashes. However, the majority of tickets given out inevitably end up being for minor rolling-right-turn violations.
According to the LA Times, Los Angeles officials estimated that 80% of their red-light camera tickets are for rolling right turns. And according to the Chicago Daily Herald, rolling-right-turn violations have accounted for 90% of the tickets generated in several Illinois communities. These tickets are often given to drivers who actually stopped safely but were inches over the line.
Drivers have long interpreted the “Right Turn On Red” law to mean that they must yield to other traffic and to pedestrians before executing a right turn when they confront a red signal at an intersection. As noted above, this interpretation has worked out extremely well from a safety and traffic movement perspective. Strict enforcement of provisions that require the driver to come to a complete stop, at a specific spot, did not occur until the advent of red-light ticket cameras.
Consequently, while almost all motorists observe the “yield the right-of-way” requirement, they do not always come to a complete stop before executing a right turn on red. National accident data clearly indicate that coming to a complete stop is not necessary, and possibly undesirable, if it causes rear-end collisions.*
In CA you can get a ticket for speeding while obeying the posted limit*, and also for impeding traffic even while going the posted limit.
There’s nothing dangerous in going 68 in a 65 zone on a clear & dry day.
and of course, since many speedometers are wrong, you very likely are not going the speed limit. Of course that doesnt stop some smug bastard from going 61 MPH in the fast lane, thinking he’s right and he’s gonna enforce the limit on everyone.:rolleyes:
*if the conditions are bad, you are speeding even if going the posted limit.
I’ve received my fair share of speeding tickets in my life but I believe in every single case I was exceeding the posted speed by at least 10 mph. I don’t think many cops bother racking up speeding tickets on soccer moms going 4 over.
Even in well known speed traps that I’ve traveled through on various commutes in my life I’ve cruised through at 5 over and never had a problem.
"Any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the *normal speed of traffic *moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle pro ceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic mov ing in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of this section.
In plain English, this law means if you’re poking along, you had better be in the right-hand or slow lane unless you’re preparing to turn left.
The elements of the violation are:
You drove at a speed “less than the normal speed of traffic,” and
You didn’t drive “as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb.”
Note it sez "normal speed of traffic". If the
normal is 75 but the limit is 65 and you drive 65 in the “fast” lane you can be ticketed.
Since in CA, minor traffic violations are not a matter of public record, it will be impossible and unethical to name any one person.
Which is irrelevant to your previous claim - being ticketed for travelling in the passing lane is not the same thing as being ticketed for obeying the speed limit.
And yet, you cite an article in which a specific person is named. Surely there must be news stories about Californians complaining to the media that they were ticketed for obeying the speed limit?
