Anyone see this?
09-14-2011, 03:56 AM
#12
Moderator
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,964
Law enforcement is not the enemy. If you simply do not speed or violate the laws you will never have an issue with them. Police officers are simply doing their jobs. It is a known fact that if you are speeding you run the risk of being pulled over, given a ticket and fined. Everyone is aware of this risk so if you get pulled over for 12 over dont blame the officer for doing their job.
It is the law...would you go 270+ below 10 thousand feet and hate the FAA for violating you? If anyone feels there were extenuating circumstances leading to their ticket/violation there is always the court system to tell your story.
It is the law...would you go 270+ below 10 thousand feet and hate the FAA for violating you? If anyone feels there were extenuating circumstances leading to their ticket/violation there is always the court system to tell your story.
09-14-2011, 05:42 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
What is the ultimate objective of speed limits? I would argue that I want people to obey speed limits out of safety - so my family will be safer on the roads.
So, does hiding in a bush and zapping motorists make people slow down? Or does a black & white parked conspicuously in the median make people slow down?
I think the answer is styoopidly obvious that a conspicuous presence of law enforcement ensures everyone obeys the speed limits. The "potential" of a speed trap does not.
Sure, everyone should always obey the law. However, that is an unrealistic expectation. But if we truly want safety, we should have conspicuous enforcement. Speed traps are nothing but a revenue generation scheme. I'd much prefer to pay a tax that lets me travel at a given speed w/o fear of repercussions than the random "tax" a speeding ticket incurs.
And since I'm a cheap bar-steward, I don't really speed much anymore...my MPG suffers!
I'm sorry, but the "...just obey the law and everything will be fine..." mantra doesn't sit well with me. Objective scrutiny of the purpose behind laws will reveal if their enforcement is having the desired effect or not. Otherwise, you will simply encourage the government to regulate everything. Question it all.
In this case, the method of enforcement clearly does not have the desired effect.
Additionally, you need to look at the how, when, & why laws were originally put on the books. We've seen speed limits change over the years, but that's because both cars & roads have as well. Would I want to do 70 mph on a twisty country road in a mid-'50s land yacht on bias-ply tires? Nope. Do I want to do it in a late-model Corvette with current tire & suspension technology? You bet. One is safe, the other is not - you get to pick which. My point with that is nothing more than the fact laws are put on the books for various reasons which may or may not be practical years later. The "why" behind the "what" or the "how" is often more relevant than the issue.
So, does hiding in a bush and zapping motorists make people slow down? Or does a black & white parked conspicuously in the median make people slow down?
I think the answer is styoopidly obvious that a conspicuous presence of law enforcement ensures everyone obeys the speed limits. The "potential" of a speed trap does not.
Sure, everyone should always obey the law. However, that is an unrealistic expectation. But if we truly want safety, we should have conspicuous enforcement. Speed traps are nothing but a revenue generation scheme. I'd much prefer to pay a tax that lets me travel at a given speed w/o fear of repercussions than the random "tax" a speeding ticket incurs.
And since I'm a cheap bar-steward, I don't really speed much anymore...my MPG suffers!
I'm sorry, but the "...just obey the law and everything will be fine..." mantra doesn't sit well with me. Objective scrutiny of the purpose behind laws will reveal if their enforcement is having the desired effect or not. Otherwise, you will simply encourage the government to regulate everything. Question it all.
In this case, the method of enforcement clearly does not have the desired effect.
Additionally, you need to look at the how, when, & why laws were originally put on the books. We've seen speed limits change over the years, but that's because both cars & roads have as well. Would I want to do 70 mph on a twisty country road in a mid-'50s land yacht on bias-ply tires? Nope. Do I want to do it in a late-model Corvette with current tire & suspension technology? You bet. One is safe, the other is not - you get to pick which. My point with that is nothing more than the fact laws are put on the books for various reasons which may or may not be practical years later. The "why" behind the "what" or the "how" is often more relevant than the issue.
09-14-2011, 05:54 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
There should be a like button on APC for the above post.
There is a town along I-95 I think it is called Covington. They have an empty cruiser parked in the median on both ends of town along the highway. I am sure that this gets people to slow down far more than the fear of Johnny Law in the bush. If you want people drive the speed limit, put cops every few miles out in the open to let people know you are watching. If you want to make money for your town, have the cops hide in bushes and write tickets.
That brings up a question of why are there unmarked cop cars? If the idea is to show police presence to remind people to obey the law shouldn't all cop cars be painted bright orange? You can't say they have unmarked cars for undercover work because they don't use them for that. Plain and simple they have unmarked cars so they blend in and can catch speeders to make money. I have been in a few states that don't use "normal" cop cars to run speed traps. You would never know it was a cop until the lights come on. Just another sneaky way to make money.
How many people would do 270 below 10K if they knew that it wasn't being monitored by ATC? My guess is a lot.
There is a town along I-95 I think it is called Covington. They have an empty cruiser parked in the median on both ends of town along the highway. I am sure that this gets people to slow down far more than the fear of Johnny Law in the bush. If you want people drive the speed limit, put cops every few miles out in the open to let people know you are watching. If you want to make money for your town, have the cops hide in bushes and write tickets.
That brings up a question of why are there unmarked cop cars? If the idea is to show police presence to remind people to obey the law shouldn't all cop cars be painted bright orange? You can't say they have unmarked cars for undercover work because they don't use them for that. Plain and simple they have unmarked cars so they blend in and can catch speeders to make money. I have been in a few states that don't use "normal" cop cars to run speed traps. You would never know it was a cop until the lights come on. Just another sneaky way to make money.
How many people would do 270 below 10K if they knew that it wasn't being monitored by ATC? My guess is a lot.
09-14-2011, 06:14 AM
#15
Libertarian Resistance
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
It is telling that, after the lawsuit was filed, the state stopped enforcing this law:
Soon after Campbell sued the state, the Highway Patrol on Aug. 29 ordered all troopers to stop issuing tickets to motorists who use headlights as a signal to other drivers.
“You are directed to suspend enforcement action for this type of driver behavior,” said the memo from Grady Garrick, acting deputy director of patrol operations
If they believed that they were right they would still be doing it. Bad law, bad enforcement, good riddance.
WW
Soon after Campbell sued the state, the Highway Patrol on Aug. 29 ordered all troopers to stop issuing tickets to motorists who use headlights as a signal to other drivers.
“You are directed to suspend enforcement action for this type of driver behavior,” said the memo from Grady Garrick, acting deputy director of patrol operations
If they believed that they were right they would still be doing it. Bad law, bad enforcement, good riddance.
WW
09-14-2011, 07:02 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
It is telling that, after the lawsuit was filed, the state stopped enforcing this law:
Soon after Campbell sued the state, the Highway Patrol on Aug. 29 ordered all troopers to stop issuing tickets to motorists who use headlights as a signal to other drivers.
“You are directed to suspend enforcement action for this type of driver behavior,” said the memo from Grady Garrick, acting deputy director of patrol operations
If they believed that they were right they would still be doing it. Bad law, bad enforcement, good riddance.
WW
Soon after Campbell sued the state, the Highway Patrol on Aug. 29 ordered all troopers to stop issuing tickets to motorists who use headlights as a signal to other drivers.
“You are directed to suspend enforcement action for this type of driver behavior,” said the memo from Grady Garrick, acting deputy director of patrol operations
If they believed that they were right they would still be doing it. Bad law, bad enforcement, good riddance.
WW
09-14-2011, 12:20 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 350
09-14-2011, 01:49 PM
#19
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Maybe if highway law enforcement would focus on stopping dangerous and harmful activity instead of generating revenue people wouldn't view them as the adversary on the highway. hey brought this on themselves.
A citation for 12-over is not about safety, it's about money.
A citation for 12-over is not about safety, it's about money.
Well, along the lines of what you said, they quickly realized they could generate more, way more revenue by placing them on the freeway. Especially a stretch where the accident/incident rate is more along the lines of rear ending/fender bender stuff due to stop and go rush hour traffic. Sure enough, on average once they started placing them there it was getting a crap ton of photo speeders per hour. And with the people that paid the fines, they started turning a massive profit in the first year.
Like you said, it wasn't at all about safety, it was about generating revenue in an easy format. Since then, there's been changes to exactly where they can place the vans due to pressure from citizens.
In the small town I grew up in, the local PD did this. Except they placed a mannequin in the car.
09-14-2011, 03:15 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
I've even seen 2D plywood paintings of cars in medians in Alabama...from a distance, it may as well be the real thing. It slows people down too.
It's cheap and frees cops up to do more important things, like enforce jaywalking statutes.
It's cheap and frees cops up to do more important things, like enforce jaywalking statutes.
