I got nailed

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

having worked in federal law enforcement I can tell you that handing out speeding tickets is NOT the work of cops.There are violent crimes that need to prioritized. Too many go unstopped, unpunished and unsolved.

I also think that if a cop gets fat he should be put on foot patrol. A cop should be as fit as soldier going to war.
Speeding tickets should totally be done by cameras.
Either we want people to drive slower or we don't. Technology can
drastically cut the average speed of traffic.
I dread the idea of sticking to the speed limit but the number of bone heads
driving SUVs and minivans going warp speed really is out of control.
I probably have 8X's the driving skill of the average driver yet I'm usually the slow one. What's wrong with that picture?

If state troopers want to hunt down speeders who may be trafficking in drugs well fine by me! but don't just sit there waiting to catch one because he's tripped the radar. Cameras should be noting when someone is going mach whatever, and radio to the trooper that someone is in an apparent rush. Police should also be looking for cars that look sketchy and pull them over. Cars should always have two cops as well.

I could not agree more!

[dbth]

What is interesting is that speeding tickets have not been issued yet by toll road governmental agencies,like the NJ Turnpike Authority.

They can easily compute your speed by clocking your times between toll stations if you have EZ Pass.Every one exceeds the speed limit by 15-20 mph on these road ,when traffic allows.
I understand that the reason they dont is because they dont want to discourage EZ Pass usage by mailing out thousands of speeding citations.
But with Corzine's thirst for revenue , that could change...

[CA_Boxster]

I'm with Bruce on this one. Speed, get caught, try to beat it or take the class, etc. Accepting that laws are laws and speeding is breaking one of them, I think the difference between this system and a cop with radar is that the cop will generally target cars who are moving at speeds that stand out. If all traffic is doing 75 in a 65, then everyone's OK. The joker that just has to go 85 and is changing lanes every 10 seconds is the one creating a danger and he'll be the one to get nabbed. The wires in the road take away that discretion. That's the part that I don't like.

I'm also with Bruce on not having a radar detector and not getting tickets. I don't drive slow. In fact, I always drive just a little faster than everyone else because I feel like I'm better able to know where all the cars around me are and I don't like cars coming up around me. I just don't call attention to myself. The few times I have received tickets I've been the one singled out by a cop just waiting to get any car that comes over the ridge a little too fast and I figure I'm fair game on those. "Yes, Sir. Yes it is a fun car. I'll see you in a month - have a nice evening".

[eslai]

Do you agree with him about automated law enforcement though? In Bruce's world, all of those 75 in a 65 people would get tickets too.

[Grizzly]

The sign says "Speed Limit 65", right? The sign doesn't say 65-ish. If we're going 75 we're wrong. Period. What makes the speed limit sign any different than a stop sign, yield sign, or red light for that matter? Should we view those traffic control devices as helpful suggestions as well?

I'm not claiming to be an angel at all. I speed, pretty consistently, in fact. The difference is that when I am caught, by whatever means, I recognize that I was dead wrong and take my medicine.

"Oh, I should have been caught by a real cop"

"Oh, everybody else was speeding and he singled me out because_______ (fill in the blank)"

"Oh, the fat cop didn't get his morning doughnut"

"Oh, I was going down a big hill"

"Oh, this was entrapment"

"Oh, big brother is ruining my life"

All of the above is bulls**t. If the sign said 65 and I was driving 75, I'm wrong. End of story. I don't care if they used satellite triangulation and a CIA unmanned drone to figure it out. They were right and I was wrong. I write the check.

[z12358]

Here are my two cents. OK, maybe four...

I feel that I agree with all sides in this discussion. Laws, once they're made, need to be obeyed and penalties should be imposed for the ones breaking them.

However, I do question the effectiveness of the present speed-limit laws in achieving our ultimate goal of safer and more efficient road travel for all -- especially when SPEED only is considered as the largest risk factor. Half of my driving I've made in Europe and half of it in the States and in my opinion the single most dangerous behavior I've observed on the roads here is -- SLOW DRIVERS IN THE LEFT LANE (SDLL). I don't know what the laws are on this subject but I firmly believe that if the police concentrated more in weeding out and ticketing this behavior (instead of speeding) we would all get much more safety bang for our tax-dollars.

Have you noticed how traffic in the States always goes in clusters, or herds? There's a cluster, then a stretch of free road and then another cluster down the road. This pattern is caused by SDLL. Consider the rule:
"If there's space in the lane to your right and the cars in that lane are driving at your current speed or faster, do switch to that lane and give the opportunity for the drivers piled up behind you to pass." I believe that enforcing this simple rule can do magic to the nationwide accident statistics.

Some here have complained about the drivers weaving in traffic. I believe that 90% of this behavior is caused by SDLL. If you've ever driven in Germany you will know what I mean. Nobody weaves there because there simply is no need for it. And the clusters of traffic are gone too thus improving safety for all.

Just some of my thoughts.
z12358

[prOk]

Not really siding one way or another, but many people do win 'entrapment' arguments and get out of tickets because the cop hid a little too well.. what does that mean for automated ticketing where there is no cop at all and you don't know you're potentially being clocked? Does that negate the entrapment argument for all?

[Grizzly]

I completely agree with Z12358. Don't get me wrong, I don't like driving 55 or 65, and I believe that with the improvements in vehicles and roadways over the past few decades, that our speed limits could be raised considerably. However, you have to keep in mind that if we're permitted to drive at say 85, so will the SUV driving soccer mom who's refereeing a fist fight in the back seat, while talking on the phone, applying eyeshadow, changing the Barney DVD and scrubbing Lucky Charms out of her upholstery. The SDLL thing annoys the crap out of me, but many states, including the one I live in, don't even have laws governing slow traffic moving right. The Police in those states couldn't smooth the flow of traffic if they wanted to. I imagine they are as frustrated as the rest of us when they're trying to get somewhere and they come up behind said soccer mom, who will not move right, and is not legally responsible to do so.

pr0k, I know that many have successfully argued entrapment, but the argument is ridiculous. The definition of entrapment:




ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

So, unless the Officer was in the driver's passenger seat calling his mom names and daring him to speed, there is no entrapment.

[Brucelee]

BTW-

I never said that I favored a particular speed for enforcement. From my point of view, the recent move to increase speed limits on major highways is a good thing and the data seems to bear out that 75 or so is better than 55 if you look a fatalities per mile.

Having said that, if the limit is 75 and I choose to do 90, I am fine about getting a tix irrespective of how this tix is issue (assuming the technology is actually accurate).

Don't do the crime and then whine about it, simply pay up and shut up.

Now, if the cops were free to then go after the BAD DRIVERS at any speed, well, that would be great.

We have TONS of them on the CA freeways.

Would love to get them off the road and on the train where they belong.

[Perfectlap]

btw, I don't think there should be ANY speed limit on highways and interstates.
Setting a speed limit only encourages weaving.There should be a stiff penalty for people who weave in out of traffick.
or
there should be speed minimums/limits for certain lanes
if you drive 55 in a 75 you get a summons.
Everyone should be driving the limit of their lane or move to the right
where the slower lanes are.

on city street and local roads the speeds should be enforced by camera.
if you are in residential area no driving over 30mph.
During wee hours of low traffic to zero traffic the limit can be lifted.



Also there should be different colored license plates for different levels
of driving skill. The color would be dependent on routine testing and
advanced driving schools. People in younger age bracketts should have
a probabtionary color for their first couple years. Older folks should have
old folks colors and not be allowed to drive in lanes above 55mph unless
they can pass certain tests regarding reaction times.

[eslai]

It's obvious that we aren't going to convince each other either way. Many of you guys amaze me with your hard-headedness about "do the crime do the time" as if the police are all angels and we're all criminals because we drive five miles over the speed limit and we deserve to be writing petty checks out to the government for this Oh My God Crime. I don't know what fantasy world everyone here lives in where everyone drives the speed limit all the time and every ticket is well-deserved, but remind me not to visit it if I ever start getting the urge.

Idealism is great, but tempering it with reality is even better... I would think...?

If speed limits were reasonable in Southern California, I bet I'd never have a problem. The only place I ever get tickets is on the freeway. If they DID get some automated system in place that started ticketing the entire population for speeding, I would probably drive slower, as I usually am going at the speed of traffic.

But if they're going to go that far, wouldn't you guys just prefer to see speed limiters in vehicles? Let's tie it to GPS, make the computer have a database of what the speed limit is on each street and not allow the vehicle to go any faster than the posted speed limit at any given time. For safety's sake, we should probably make sure that it limits speed around corners too--as just because the speed limit is 25 MPH doesn't mean that any given corner is safe at 25 MPH.

[Grizzly]

[QUOTE=eslai]It's obvious that we aren't going to convince each other either way. Many of you guys amaze me with your hard-headedness about "do the crime do the time" as if the police are all angels and we're all criminals because we drive five miles over the speed limit and we deserve to be writing petty checks out to the government for this Oh My God Crime. I don't know what fantasy world everyone here lives in where everyone drives the speed limit all the time and every ticket is well-deserved, but remind me not to visit it if I ever start getting the urge.

I have bad news for you eslai. If you are driving at 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, you are technically a criminal because you have committed a misdemeanor crime.

Let's look at another minor misdemeanor crime through your eyes. Assault. Using your logic, if a guy kicked your ass...didn't necessarily hospitalize you but just pounded a few minor dents into your head, he wouldn't necessarily be guilty of assault because such a minor violation of the misdemeanor of assault shouldn't be taken so damned seriously and the cops should be spending their time chasing real bad guys.


If they DID get some automated system in place that started ticketing the entire population for speeding, I would probably drive slower, as I usually am going at the speed of traffic.


Seems to me that's what they're trying to accomplish. I think you just made our argument. The nice thing about these traffic devices is that they get everybody. A Police Officer is like a fisherman. He throws his line in the water and only catches as many as he can catch. These speed devices and red light cameras, however, catch 'em all, making them a much more powerful deterrent.

Like Brucelee said, sort of. If these devices concentrate on speed and red lights, the Police are then free to chase the aggressive drivers and other violators who make it even more dangerous for us than it already is.

[CA_Boxster]

Originally Posted by eslai

Do you agree with him about automated law enforcement though? In Bruce's world, all of those 75 in a 65 people would get tickets too.

I don't think he was a fan of automated enforcement. He was simply saying that there's a fixed number that is the limit and going over means you exceeded the limit and broke a law. That's true.

If the limit's 65 and I'm clocked doing 66 then the law says I can get a ticket. I can also fight it and likely win. It would suck, but if I'm over the limit then I did break a law. That's not the same as "automated". Per my explanation about cops having discretion to target more erratic drivers and leave cars just going with the flow alone, I'm an advocate of that discretion being applied. Automatically cutting a ticket for every car that goes 1 mile over the limit would be extreme and undesireable in my opinion (though I wouldn't argue against it for limited cases like school zones where it's a pretty direct safety issue). This is why there's that traditional buffer of 10mph over the limit (on a highway) where you generally won't get stopped. I've even lived in states where the fines were set by that rule of thumb. There was a set amount just for speeding for any speed up to 10mph over the limit and an incremental fine for each 1mph above that.

[eslai]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

I have bad news for you eslai. If you are driving at 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, you are technically a criminal because you have committed a misdemeanor crime.

This is something that I fully understand, but I don't know how to get you guys to quit focusing on that and understand what I'm trying to say instead of pulling the book out on me over and over again. I blame myself.

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Seems to me that's what they're trying to accomplish. I think you just made our argument. The nice thing about these traffic devices is that they get everybody. A Police Officer is like a fisherman. He throws his line in the water and only catches as many as he can catch. These speed devices and red light cameras, however, catch 'em all, making them a much more powerful deterrent.

And then there are those of us out there that think there are better ways to enforce laws than by "criminalizing" everyone that does something unsafe. The point of laws is to keep the populace safe, not penalize and tax them.

An example is the red light camera thing. They make money--thus the argument against them regarding safety is a moot point. Regardless of what point you make against them, people will use them because they bring in cash.

But it's been debated as to whether or not simply having longer yellow lights fixes the problem, and/or whether red light cameras actually cause more traffic accidents than they were suppsed to prevent.

Why not simply raise the speed limits on the interstate to reasonable speeds? I don't see speeds as being out of control on the freeway or even most city streets and I think the police already do a fine job of catching the people that drive like maniacs on either one.

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Like Brucelee said, sort of. If these devices concentrate on speed and red lights, the Police are then free to chase the aggressive drivers and other violators who make it even more dangerous for us than it already is.

The Police are already free to chase aggressive drivers and other violators! Automated speed enforcement is simply a way to tax drivers in my eyes. You're driving safely, you're driving five miles over the speed limit and bam! Ticket. How does ticketing people that drive at reasonable speeds going to curtail the aggressive drivers that are racing in and out of traffic?

To me, automated enforcement solves a problem that doesn't exist. If anyone wants to start pulling out statistics on me, feel free. I know I'm arguing against a brick wall anyhow and unfortunately, I don't feel I have the time or energy to commit to making a convincing argument against you guys.

Whenever we have these threads I end up feeling like I'm on the wrong Porsche board. This is the only one I visit that I get this strange righteous tone from. It's like I got a Boxster and made a wrong turn onto a Cutlass forum or something. I mean that playfully--I'm not saying that you all are boring old snods that don't know how to live like FAST AND FURIOUS or something, I just sometimes don't feel the same level of "enthusiasm" as I do on other boards.

What do you guys do with your cars? Drive around at posted speed limits, take on-ramps at 25 MPH because of the yellow warning signs, never rev pass 3000 RPM, go on "fun runs" with the Miata boys on Sundays, try to maximize your tire life, hate shifting, like driving slow so you can smell the breeze in the trees, catch leaves in your hand as they fall over the car, don't like driving your boxsters on a daily basis because they're hard to get in and out of?

[eslai]

Originally Posted by CA_Boxster

I don't think he was a fan of automated enforcement. He was simply saying that there's a fixed number that is the limit and going over means you exceeded the limit and broke a law. That's true.

If the limit's 65 and I'm clocked doing 66 then the law says I can get a ticket. I can also fight it and likely win. It would suck, but if I'm over the limit then I did break a law. That's not the same as "automated". Per my explanation about cops having discretion to target more erratic drivers and leave cars just going with the flow alone, I'm an advocate of that discretion being applied. Automatically cutting a ticket for every car that goes 1 mile over the limit would be extreme and undesireable in my opinion (though I wouldn't argue against it for limited cases like school zones where it's a pretty direct safety issue). This is why there's that traditional buffer of 10mph over the limit (on a highway) where you generally won't get stopped. I've even lived in states where the fines were set by that rule of thumb. There was a set amount just for speeding for any speed up to 10mph over the limit and an incremental fine for each 1mph above that.

Hmm... that's not what I got out of this debate. I thought we were arguing over automated enforcement and everyone kept saying "YOU WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT IF YOU WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW YOU CRIMINAL", basically. I hear no discussion about any sort of traditional buffer.

I remember getting a ticket from a cop back in high school for going 52 in a 45 (La Costa Avenue, towards Rancho Santa Fe, for those familiar with the area. Traffic usually moves 55 to 60 on that one). I didn't argue with him at all, he had me on radar after all, but it sure felt really unfair. Now if that had been a hidden ticket camera, I'd have been really ticked off about it, but then the guy that had just passed me going 60 a few seconds prior would also have received a ticket so maybe it wouldn't have been so bad.

[JackG]

I've been staying out of this one, as it has been active enough, but I just have to respond to this:

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Let's look at another minor misdemeanor crime through your eyes. Assault. Using your logic, if a guy kicked your ass...didn't necessarily hospitalize you but just pounded a few minor dents into your head, he wouldn't necessarily be guilty of assault because such a minor violation of the misdemeanor of assault shouldn't be taken so damned seriously and the cops should be spending their time chasing real bad guys.

Bad analogy. Speeding is a victimless "crime", assault (& battery) is not. Besides, we can surely agree that no matter whether I simply slap someone, or I pound them down and send them to the hospital, those are both examples of assault & battery. Many cops wouldn't bother to arrest for the slap though, and rightfully so. That's where some human thought and judgement comes in... and that's exactly what the camera doesn't have. Our laws are not absolute... they are (or were) meant to be interpreted by thinking, reasonable people. The unmanned traffic camera negates all of that. No ability to see that a truck was bearing down on someone, and they were speeding up for their own *safety*, or any of the thousand other valid reasons for doing 56 in a 55. The real world is not black and white... there are shades of grey.


The nice thing about these traffic devices is that they get everybody. A Police Officer is like a fisherman. He throws his line in the water and only catches as many as he can catch. These speed devices and red light cameras, however, catch 'em all, making them a much more powerful deterrent.

Like Brucelee said, sort of. If these devices concentrate on speed and red lights, the Police are then free to chase the aggressive drivers and other violators who make it even more dangerous for us than it already is.

That made my point... no valid reasonable thought, just mail a ticket to everyone. And don't delude yourself, they are not being used to free up the cops to chase bad drivers, they are money-makin' machines... period. No health insurance, no pension, no benefits. Just a flow of money.

[Brucelee]

I am still laughing about the need for reasonable speed limts in CA. The freeway SL is 70, folks drive up to and including 100. All,day, everyday, traffic permitting.

I guess I don't know what reasonable is. Maybe 90 or so in some folk's books.

Having said that, I continue to muse over the whining about this issue.

Do you guys have an issue with limits or what? If its 70 its 70. If its 90 its 90.

If you speed, you get a ticket. How hard is this to figure out?

What is unclear about this?

If that offends you, well, you will need to take it up with the judge, the governor or whoever.

Don't blame the cops, they have enough on their hands right now.

BTW- if the cops convict you using DNA (new technology) or they catch Abdul about to blow up a bridge using infared scanners, do you have issue with this too?

Just checking!

[Brucelee]

"I just sometimes don't feel the same level of "enthusiasm" as I do on other boards."

If you are looking for a board that loves to talk about street racing exploits, you do have the wrong board.

Personally, I can't think of too many dumber ways to spend one'd time than street racing.


Of course, ripping it at the track is a whole other matter.

[Grizzly]

Jack G,

For some reason I can't quote your message, but you are right, that was a bad analogy. I was just being silly, while trying to make a point. My point is that not only do we want law enforcement to overlook certain laws, but we want to be able to choose which laws they overlook.

Law enforcement, as an unwritten rule, gives us 9-10 miles an hour over the limit. Even the speed devices are set to make an allowance, which varies with jurisdiction. How much do we want? How many miles an hour over is enough?

Yes, I think the local governments rake in a ton of cheese from these devices and that may truthfully be their primary reason for existence (though the governments vehemently deny this). Even so, if they slow the flow of traffic, then they've been an effective deterrent. Take Rail26, who started this thread. When he comes through that stretch again, he will be travelling at the speed limit, as will everyone else who got hammered that day...and every other day. Soon, you've calmed the traffic flow through that area. Maybe, just maybe, that kid on the tricycle will not get squashed, because the traffic device has effectively scrubbed off 20 miles an hour from the average speed through that stretch of road and the braking distances have been significantly reduced. Now that speed is no longer a problem in that area, the Police are truly free to pursue other interests, where before they really were not. Why? Because they had to look out for the kid on the trike. Again, if speed, red light running, etc is not held in check, by whatever means, it won't be long before people get hurt. You made a comment about no valid, reasonable thought regarding the speed devices. There actually was some valid, reasonable thought in the process, but it came long before the placement of the speed device. The valid, reasonable thought came from the traffic engineers, who studied the road, location, topography, whatever and decided on a reasonable speed. The speed device is just a governor to regulate the flow.

ESLAI,

I can't seem to quote your post either, but I'm not saying I'm an angel. I DRIVE my cars. All I'm saying is that when I'm caught, I'm caught. I started my tyrade here for two reasons. First and foremost because certain members of the forum felt it necessary to bash the doughnut eating, pork scented Police, which was truly unfair as the Police had nothing to do with this ticket in the first place. Secondly, I got wound up because people whined about HOW they were being caught. Nobody said they didn't commit the violation, they were just fired up about the means by which they were being caught and claiming all kinds of B.S. like entrapment. Whatever. You violated some rule or law and were caught.

The larger issue of whether speeding and traffic violations should or should not be crimes is certainly beyond me. In the system of government in which we live, they are crimes, punishable by fines. They always have been, and I'm willing to bet they always will be. If you want that system changed, run for Emporer. I don't know what else to tell you except as long as there are rules, you gotta play by them or you spend two minutes in the penalty box. If you cry in the penalty box, you look like a punk.

[eslai]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

If you speed, you get a ticket. How hard is this to figure out?

What is unclear about this?

If that offends you, well, you will need to take it up with the judge, the governor or whoever.

Don't blame the cops, they have enough on their hands right now.

BTW- if the cops convict you using DNA (new technology) or they catch Abdul about to blow up a bridge using infared scanners, do you have issue with this too?

Just checking!

I think JackG made my points clearer than I ever could, thanks man! But one thing I'd like to point out is that I am not blaming the cops at all... in this case.

Oh and again, neither of the questions you asked regarding DNA or infrared scanners are AUTOMATED AND UNMANNED so either you're not reading me very well, or you're ignoring what I'm trying to say.

Originally Posted by Brucelee

If you are looking for a board that loves to talk about street racing exploits, you do have the wrong board.

Personally, I can't think of too many dumber ways to spend one'd time than street racing.


Of course, ripping it at the track is a whole other matter.

Man, everything's black or white with you isn't it? No where did I say anything about street racing. There are other ways to be an enthusiast than being a retard, you realize.

In fact, in none of the Boxster forums that I frequent do I ever see anyone talking about street racing. That's a totally different demographic I think.