Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
anthony7777
Yoda
Offline
bret, and for all these years i thought i was the only victim of "spousel anger transference" /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif
-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Web site showing speed traps in your state
- Thread starter Harry_Ward
- Start date
Share this page
A
aerog
Guest
Guest
Offline
There are some "traps" here that are so blatant that even the AAA had taken it upon themselves to buy billboards to advertise them. These are the areas on 4-lane 60mph highways that suddenly, after going around a corner, the speed drops to 25mph, then goes back up. A few towns here are infamous for it.
People's excuses for speeding absolutely amaze me. I worked with a Sheriff's officer/helicopter pilot several years ago. He really didn't have a problem with people speeding, and in his position he obviously wasn't in the business of handing out tickets. But, one dark night they saw a car flying down one of the minor back roads here. From the chopper they estimates the vehicle's speed to be in excess of 110mph. They set up a "stop" (not a road block) and the driver stopped, they talked to her, gave her a ticket, and let her go.
Why was she speeding? Because she was late picking her kids up from the baby sitter.
Brilliant.
People's excuses for speeding absolutely amaze me. I worked with a Sheriff's officer/helicopter pilot several years ago. He really didn't have a problem with people speeding, and in his position he obviously wasn't in the business of handing out tickets. But, one dark night they saw a car flying down one of the minor back roads here. From the chopper they estimates the vehicle's speed to be in excess of 110mph. They set up a "stop" (not a road block) and the driver stopped, they talked to her, gave her a ticket, and let her go.
Why was she speeding? Because she was late picking her kids up from the baby sitter.
Brilliant.
Bret
Yoda
Offline
Sure it’s a reflection of what our society has become. But what I get kind of annoyed by the tired old argument that “it’s all about the revenue” kind of a knee-jerk response by some to the issue. As if that makes it ok to break the law or something. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gifSteve_S said:
IMHO it just another way of internally passing the blame to these sorts of interactions with law enforcement regarding poor driving habits.
You should hear some of the folks on the Porsche forums I hang out on whining about this stuff. Normally it’s just after they’d received some sort of citation for an obvious infraction and it’s a violation of their personal freedoms. As if it’s a constitutional or god given right to drive as fast as they want to on public high ways.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a hypocrite, I’ve been guilty of speeding. And yes I have been popped for speeding more than a few times in my 30 some odd years of driving. Some was intentional other times I just wasn’t paying attention the way I should’ve been. But the difference between me and some of those whiners is that I always accepted responsibility and the consequences for my actions.
Steve_S
Yoda
Offline
That isn't what I was agreeing to at all. I was agreeing that the driving force behind the majority of speeding citations is revenue for the city or state, not that it is the only reason they are or should be handed out. If you knowingly break a law then you have to be ready for the consequences.
Straying a bit, there are also many times tickets are handed out when they shouldn't be. Just because a law has been broken doesn't mean it was done knowingly or intentionally. I believe in intent of law rather than written word.
Example: The law states that all vehicles must be equipped with a left side mirror. It is safe to assume that the reason for this is that the vehicle's blind spot will be just over the driver's shoulder. A right side mirror is not required because the driver has a clear view to the right. Well, I drive a right hand drive car. Therefore the mirror should be on the right to cover the blind spot, and that's where it is in order to keep myself and those around me safe. My car is therefore illegal for use on California roads and I can be ticketed for it.
The INTENT of the law is to require a mirror on the driver's side. But some genius never considered that a right hand drive vehicle might be on US roadways (never mind US Mail trucks and parking enforcement) so the law uses the words "left side" rather than "driver's side". Rather than blindly follow a law I know to be flawed, I keep my mirror on the side where it should be in order to keep myself safe. Yes I could install two mirrors but I shouldn't have to drill holes in my car and install extra mirrors to satisfy an improperly worded sentence! A RHD car is no different than a LHD car in the law books, so I shouldn't be penalized for driving one.
We should take a lesson from the Europeans and use "near side" and "far side" rather than absolutes when describing such things! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Straying a bit, there are also many times tickets are handed out when they shouldn't be. Just because a law has been broken doesn't mean it was done knowingly or intentionally. I believe in intent of law rather than written word.
Example: The law states that all vehicles must be equipped with a left side mirror. It is safe to assume that the reason for this is that the vehicle's blind spot will be just over the driver's shoulder. A right side mirror is not required because the driver has a clear view to the right. Well, I drive a right hand drive car. Therefore the mirror should be on the right to cover the blind spot, and that's where it is in order to keep myself and those around me safe. My car is therefore illegal for use on California roads and I can be ticketed for it.
The INTENT of the law is to require a mirror on the driver's side. But some genius never considered that a right hand drive vehicle might be on US roadways (never mind US Mail trucks and parking enforcement) so the law uses the words "left side" rather than "driver's side". Rather than blindly follow a law I know to be flawed, I keep my mirror on the side where it should be in order to keep myself safe. Yes I could install two mirrors but I shouldn't have to drill holes in my car and install extra mirrors to satisfy an improperly worded sentence! A RHD car is no different than a LHD car in the law books, so I shouldn't be penalized for driving one.
We should take a lesson from the Europeans and use "near side" and "far side" rather than absolutes when describing such things! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Bret
Yoda
Offline
Steve I understand what you're talking about and can see that there is a difference between the letter of the law and the intent.
That said while I would agree that the validity involving a vehicle equipment violation could be subjective & ultimately up to the discretion of the officer as to whether to issue a ticket or not and just give a warning.
But guilt shouldn't be contingent on ones knowledge of whether or not they where speeding or not. Speeding is speeding. But like the equipment (mirrors) it’s up to the officers discretion as to whether or not to issue a ticket depending on the severity of the speeding violation.
Example: doing 10 mph over the freeway’s 65mph posted speed limit vs. doing 40 in a 25mph school zone. The first a cop might pull you over and issue a ticket or let you go with a warning. The second violator in a school zone should IMHO receive the highest punishment allowable for that infraction.
That said while I would agree that the validity involving a vehicle equipment violation could be subjective & ultimately up to the discretion of the officer as to whether to issue a ticket or not and just give a warning.
But guilt shouldn't be contingent on ones knowledge of whether or not they where speeding or not. Speeding is speeding. But like the equipment (mirrors) it’s up to the officers discretion as to whether or not to issue a ticket depending on the severity of the speeding violation.
Example: doing 10 mph over the freeway’s 65mph posted speed limit vs. doing 40 in a 25mph school zone. The first a cop might pull you over and issue a ticket or let you go with a warning. The second violator in a school zone should IMHO receive the highest punishment allowable for that infraction.
Steve_S
Yoda
Offline
Our views differ a bit there. Honestly I don't see a difference between a vehicle infraction and a speeding citation. In both cases it's a matter of what the law says, what was intended and what is the right thing to do in that particular situation. Driving 55 in a 40 zone is breaking the law. But if a person always obey all speed limits, but one time doesn't notice a change from one speed to another, that is an honest mistake and should be overlooked. Of course the officer can't know the intent of the person, but that's why it's so important to have the right person wearing the badge. A requirement of law enforcement should be, and to a certain extent is, to have an ability to read people's intentions.
I believe laws are there to protect the innocent from those who would knowingly do harm. An honest and harmless mistake should not be punished. Example, if a child pours milk all over the floor, knowing it is wrong and against the house rules, then he/she should be punished. If a child spills accidentally, or is too young to know that pouring milk on the floor is wrong, then no punishment should be handed out.
In Montana there are no speed limits in many places. It is up to drivers to decide what is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. Speeding tickets are still handed out, but it is up to the officer to decide if the speed was safe for the given conditions or not. 80MPH is fine one day, while the next day 50MPH can receive a ticket because the road was foggy. This is intent of law in its finest example! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif The only reason we don't do that here is that there are too many people who would drive unsafely and it would be impossible to control.
I believe laws are there to protect the innocent from those who would knowingly do harm. An honest and harmless mistake should not be punished. Example, if a child pours milk all over the floor, knowing it is wrong and against the house rules, then he/she should be punished. If a child spills accidentally, or is too young to know that pouring milk on the floor is wrong, then no punishment should be handed out.
In Montana there are no speed limits in many places. It is up to drivers to decide what is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. Speeding tickets are still handed out, but it is up to the officer to decide if the speed was safe for the given conditions or not. 80MPH is fine one day, while the next day 50MPH can receive a ticket because the road was foggy. This is intent of law in its finest example! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif The only reason we don't do that here is that there are too many people who would drive unsafely and it would be impossible to control.
Bret
Yoda
Offline
But don’t you think there should be some sort of consequences even for (as you put it) honest mistakes? I mean losing or turning in a library book late could be considered an honest mistake too – but you still have to pay a fine. Perhaps that fine might make you be a little more diligent the next time you check a book out.
Likewise the person who for whatever reason is distracted or not paying attention is pulled over speeding. While it might not have been their intent to speed that morning when they rolled out of bed, perhaps that fine will be a reminder to pay closer attention to what you are doing the next time you hop behind the wheel of that 3000 pound hunk of rolling steel.
Likewise the person who for whatever reason is distracted or not paying attention is pulled over speeding. While it might not have been their intent to speed that morning when they rolled out of bed, perhaps that fine will be a reminder to pay closer attention to what you are doing the next time you hop behind the wheel of that 3000 pound hunk of rolling steel.
Steve_S
Yoda
Offline
Valid point about the library book, although I do see one difference. The book would be something that was probably put off time and time again, where missing a single speed limit sign is bound to happen due to human imperfection. If you ignored speed limit signs on a long-term basis then that's inexcusable.
I suppose the problem I have with certain speeding infractions is that they are very severe whether or not it was a simple and harmless mistake or not. They cost hundreds of dollars, potentially raise your insurance rates and cause a lot of time and effort. Many people don't have the money to pay it or the time off work to deal with it. If there was a way to know who had ill intentions and who didn't then the system could allow for variance in the punishment or warnings. But there is no way to determine who the bad guys are since they always try to lie their way out of it.
Warning, stories ahead! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif
Story: I was once pulled over for speeding. There were no cars or people around, no driveways, etc. Still, I knew I was speeding without a good reason and was ready to accept the ticket. The officer and his partner were in training, and being supervised by a training officer. After the ticket was written, the training officer came up and asked me how his trainees were doing. I said they were doing fine, and acted professional although a bit impersonal and stern. He asked what I was written up for to which I replied speeding. He asked why I didn't just tell them my speedometer wasn't working. I replied that I didn't want to lie. He told me to have a nice day and walked off. As I was pulling away I saw him talking to the trainees, pointing at me and shaking his head. Apparently he felt I should have been given a warning.
Another story: I was pulled over for a seatbelt infraction many years ago. It was 1AM and I had just pulled out of a diner with a car full of people and forgot to put the belt on. The belt law was still new so I wasn't used to putting it on before driving off. One officer gave the other a hand signal which was obviously suggesting letting me off the hook. The other officer promptly asked for my ID and wrote me a ticket.
There are people who follow the written word to the tee and those who follow a more practical interpretation of the law. Neither is wrong of course, but I prefer the latter. I simply don't see a reason for strict discipline and obedience in every day life. Common sense is highly underrated! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
I suppose the problem I have with certain speeding infractions is that they are very severe whether or not it was a simple and harmless mistake or not. They cost hundreds of dollars, potentially raise your insurance rates and cause a lot of time and effort. Many people don't have the money to pay it or the time off work to deal with it. If there was a way to know who had ill intentions and who didn't then the system could allow for variance in the punishment or warnings. But there is no way to determine who the bad guys are since they always try to lie their way out of it.
Warning, stories ahead! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif
Story: I was once pulled over for speeding. There were no cars or people around, no driveways, etc. Still, I knew I was speeding without a good reason and was ready to accept the ticket. The officer and his partner were in training, and being supervised by a training officer. After the ticket was written, the training officer came up and asked me how his trainees were doing. I said they were doing fine, and acted professional although a bit impersonal and stern. He asked what I was written up for to which I replied speeding. He asked why I didn't just tell them my speedometer wasn't working. I replied that I didn't want to lie. He told me to have a nice day and walked off. As I was pulling away I saw him talking to the trainees, pointing at me and shaking his head. Apparently he felt I should have been given a warning.
Another story: I was pulled over for a seatbelt infraction many years ago. It was 1AM and I had just pulled out of a diner with a car full of people and forgot to put the belt on. The belt law was still new so I wasn't used to putting it on before driving off. One officer gave the other a hand signal which was obviously suggesting letting me off the hook. The other officer promptly asked for my ID and wrote me a ticket.
There are people who follow the written word to the tee and those who follow a more practical interpretation of the law. Neither is wrong of course, but I prefer the latter. I simply don't see a reason for strict discipline and obedience in every day life. Common sense is highly underrated! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Bret
Yoda
Offline
Fair enough, but just like you saw a difference in my late library book analogy, I too found an issue with yours involving the child’s spilt milk. Now I realize this is a stretch with most folks these days but as an adult we are suppose to be.. well.. an *ADILT* and as such responsible for our actions - accident or not. Not trying to offend - but I find it hard equating a child’s actions while sitting in a high chair, to that of an adult driving a vehicle poorly on public roads.Steve_S said:
Seriously, if the child spills their milk accidentally or not, it is the parent's responsibility to point that that was inappropriate behavior. Whereas an adult it is presumed that they’ve been told what is right or wrong.
As for a person getting off or receiving a reduced sentence based on their means or inability to pay a fine. I personally think that a $300 speeding ticket for someone with a lot of money wouldn’t be as much of a deterrent for someone like say Paris Hilton. But I don’t think that someone of diminished resources should be given a pass either.
I believe that Germany has a sliding scale for fines based on income for violators. I’d be open to something like that but I don’t think a poor person should be given a break just because their poor.
And just like you & I don’t see eye to eye on this issue, the folks in law enforcement differ and have their own pet peeves when it comes to certain violations. Where one officer might be more willing to write a ticket for a seatbelt violation at the drop of a hat (maybe he’d seen one too many accidents, where a seatbelt could’ve meant a victim’s survival) whereas another might not be as inclined.Steve_S said:
Steve_S
Yoda
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I find it hard equating a child’s actions while sitting in a high chair, to that of an adult driving a vehicle poorly on public roads.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I wasn't trying to make a literal analogy. It was an attempt to show that unintentional and harmless mistakes don't always need punishment. A warning will often do nicely, and perhaps do a better job than a citation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I personally think that a $300 speeding ticket for someone with a lot of money wouldn’t be as much of a deterrent for someone like say Paris Hilton. But I don’t think that someone of diminished resources should be given a pass either. [/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. I suppose this one goes back to the original statement (who said that anyway? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ) that speeding citations are largely based on revenue. Perhaps better than a monetary punishment, traffic school could instead be assigned for every infraction. Education is far more useful to everyone than forcing someone to pay cash to the city. It will never happen though, since the various governmental agencies are quite used to making a lot of money from those who drive above the posted speed limits!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]And just like you & I don’t see eye to eye on this issue, the folks in law enforcement differ and have their own pet peeves when it comes to certain violations.[/QUOTE]
I certainly can't argue with that!
Agreed. I wasn't trying to make a literal analogy. It was an attempt to show that unintentional and harmless mistakes don't always need punishment. A warning will often do nicely, and perhaps do a better job than a citation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I personally think that a $300 speeding ticket for someone with a lot of money wouldn’t be as much of a deterrent for someone like say Paris Hilton. But I don’t think that someone of diminished resources should be given a pass either. [/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. I suppose this one goes back to the original statement (who said that anyway? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ) that speeding citations are largely based on revenue. Perhaps better than a monetary punishment, traffic school could instead be assigned for every infraction. Education is far more useful to everyone than forcing someone to pay cash to the city. It will never happen though, since the various governmental agencies are quite used to making a lot of money from those who drive above the posted speed limits!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]And just like you & I don’t see eye to eye on this issue, the folks in law enforcement differ and have their own pet peeves when it comes to certain violations.[/QUOTE]
I certainly can't argue with that!
Bret
Yoda
Offline
You're absolutely right. I suppose this one goes back to the original statement (who said that anyway? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ) that speeding citations are largely based on revenue. Perhaps better than a monetary punishment, traffic school could instead be assigned for every infraction. Education is far more useful to everyone than forcing someone to pay cash to the city. It will never happen though, since the various governmental agencies are quite used to making a lot of money from those who drive above the posted speed limits!Steve_S said:
[/QUOTE]
Traffic school is IMHO a joke - leastways down here it is. When my ex-GF took it I got the impression it was a big gab session with a couple of movies and a couple of lectures.
Moreover the fines are pretty much the same as they would be if you went to court & lost or just paid the fine. But the amount out of pocket is pretty much the same. A small portion goes to the admin/court costs and the rest (the actual fine) gets pocketed by the private contractor who performs the traffic school. None but the aforementioned admin & court costs goes to the city.
That said about the only thing my ex got out of traffic school was no lost points on her Driver's License, no increase in insurance rates because the citation removed from her record.
All of that & she still insists it was the cop’s fault she got pulled over not her speeding. Nope, I don't think she learned anything from traffic school.
Steve_S
Yoda
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]...the fines are pretty much the same as they would be if you went to court & lost or just paid the fine... A small portion goes to the admin/court costs and the rest (the actual fine) gets pocketed by the private contractor who performs the traffic school. None but the aforementioned admin & court costs goes to the city.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the fine for the ticket is the same whether you take traffic school or not. The fee for traffic school is additional and separate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Traffic school is IMHO a joke - leastways down here it is. When my ex-GF took it I got the impression it was a big gab session with a couple of movies and a couple of lectures. [/QUOTE]
Indeed. The entire educational process for new and experienced drivers in this country is a joke. Most people who currently hold a driver's license would be incapable of passing a simple beginner's driving test in the UK.
Some traffic schools are good and some are completely useless. honestly I don't know how some of them ever got approved by the state! Online traffic school is actually pretty good. It concentrates on education with a hint of humor to keep your interest. My wife actually had a great time helping me with it once. I couldn't keep her away from the computer because she found it so interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]All of that & she still insists it was the cop’s fault she got pulled over not her speeding. Nope, I don't think she learned anything from traffic school.[/QUOTE]
I have to agree!!!
Actually, the fine for the ticket is the same whether you take traffic school or not. The fee for traffic school is additional and separate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Traffic school is IMHO a joke - leastways down here it is. When my ex-GF took it I got the impression it was a big gab session with a couple of movies and a couple of lectures. [/QUOTE]
Indeed. The entire educational process for new and experienced drivers in this country is a joke. Most people who currently hold a driver's license would be incapable of passing a simple beginner's driving test in the UK.
Some traffic schools are good and some are completely useless. honestly I don't know how some of them ever got approved by the state! Online traffic school is actually pretty good. It concentrates on education with a hint of humor to keep your interest. My wife actually had a great time helping me with it once. I couldn't keep her away from the computer because she found it so interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]All of that & she still insists it was the cop’s fault she got pulled over not her speeding. Nope, I don't think she learned anything from traffic school.[/QUOTE]
I have to agree!!!
Bret
Yoda
Offline
That’s what I used to think but my ex said she was told the fees & enrollment fees where a wash. Likewise when I went to court to pay a speeding ticket about 10+ years ago, when I went to pay my fine I was asked by the clerk why I didn’t want to just take traffic school – she told me that it didn’t cost anymore than paying the fine. Maybe things are different from one county to the next or perhaps things have changed.Steve_S said:
Not sure what the error is between what you’re saying and what I am saying?
Anyway.
I have to agree!!! [/QUOTE]Steve_S said:
So you think it’s ok for someone to do ~1.5x the posted speed limit? I mean in my ex’s case she was so distracted and/or oblivious to her surroundings that she was doing 38 in a 25mph residential area. What if someone decided to back out of their driveway or worse yet – some poor kid runs out in front of her chasing a ball or something.
This is why (as a parent) that I’ve said all along that I’d rather get caught doing a 130mph on an open freeway that ever do anything over 30 in a 25mph.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
A speeding ticket has yet to make me change my driving patterns! I get at least 1 a year, sometimes 2...& I still drive the same way - heck, I'm usually above the speed limit within an hour of getting a ticket!
They're all about revenue!
They're all about revenue!
Bret
Yoda
Offline
Ok confession time again:
A couple of months ago I was pulled over in almost the exact same spot where my ex-GF got her ticket - a residential 25mph zone a block away from the her house. I’m a grownup and will admit that I was distracted – phone call from my boss. Only differences between what happened to my ex and me was that the cop who pulled me over was in a patrol car whereas she was pulled over by a motorcycle cop other than that I was doing 37mph and she was doing 38 in the 25mph zone.
Now I fully expected to get a ticket and while I might of beat myself up for being stupid I wouldn’t of moaned & groaned about the cop doing his job. Other than that – I amazingly enough didn’t get a ticket just a verbal warning while the ex got a ticket.
Now I’ve been told that the only reason I got off was because motorcycle cops are dedicated to traffic enforcement where as regular patrol cars aren’t. But after pulling me over he went right back to the same spot and waited for the next poor unsuspecting motorists. I saw him pull over no less than 6 more cars and as best I could tell from my vantage point about 300 feet away – almost all just got a warning & friendly talking too. So this cruiser wasn’t just patrolling, but was staked-out using a radar gun to catch speeders in our neighborhood and issuing warnings to slow down. So while it might be different in other parts of the country – here in my neck little of the woods it would seem that it isn’t just about the revenue for the city coffers. If it was I along with a number of other folks that particular afternoon probably have been issued tickets.
Not sure where I’m going with all this but to reiterate that while I do speed regularly I rarely do so off of main thoroughfares or major highways and do my best to keep it reined in while on residential streets & neighborhoods. If fact I felt pretty guilty & beat myself up pretty bad over that incident even though I didn’t get a ticket.
A couple of months ago I was pulled over in almost the exact same spot where my ex-GF got her ticket - a residential 25mph zone a block away from the her house. I’m a grownup and will admit that I was distracted – phone call from my boss. Only differences between what happened to my ex and me was that the cop who pulled me over was in a patrol car whereas she was pulled over by a motorcycle cop other than that I was doing 37mph and she was doing 38 in the 25mph zone.
Now I fully expected to get a ticket and while I might of beat myself up for being stupid I wouldn’t of moaned & groaned about the cop doing his job. Other than that – I amazingly enough didn’t get a ticket just a verbal warning while the ex got a ticket.
Now I’ve been told that the only reason I got off was because motorcycle cops are dedicated to traffic enforcement where as regular patrol cars aren’t. But after pulling me over he went right back to the same spot and waited for the next poor unsuspecting motorists. I saw him pull over no less than 6 more cars and as best I could tell from my vantage point about 300 feet away – almost all just got a warning & friendly talking too. So this cruiser wasn’t just patrolling, but was staked-out using a radar gun to catch speeders in our neighborhood and issuing warnings to slow down. So while it might be different in other parts of the country – here in my neck little of the woods it would seem that it isn’t just about the revenue for the city coffers. If it was I along with a number of other folks that particular afternoon probably have been issued tickets.
Not sure where I’m going with all this but to reiterate that while I do speed regularly I rarely do so off of main thoroughfares or major highways and do my best to keep it reined in while on residential streets & neighborhoods. If fact I felt pretty guilty & beat myself up pretty bad over that incident even though I didn’t get a ticket.
R
RonMacPherson
Guest
Guest
Offline
Bret, in theory you are right.
In practice, No way...
We, as humans adapt(the vast majority) to fit in to society, when the flow of traffic on the road is zooming by us and causing our cars to shake from the wind turbulence, the majority increase the speed to cover the uncomfortableness.
Every place that I have seen cops park here in Hawaii(mostly on Oahu) there primary intention has been to cite people as a revenue generator. i.e. they do not sit out in the open and act as a deterrent, they try to conceal themselves from traffic's view as much as possible, even to the point of parking on non-public no parking posted roads and driveways.
Since I moved here in 89 I have observed two times cops obeying the speed laws. Every other cop I have seen driving and been able to observe their rate of flow have been exceeding the speed limit measurably. I have called a couple in, was told later they were going to calls(one was a McDonalds' big mac call, as I followed the motor officer into the mall parking lot). I have been passed by trains of motor officer(and lane splitting here in Hawaii is ILLEGAL) numerous times, watched the motor officers zooming down the highway, at speeds greater than 80 mph, because they needed to get back to the station as their shift was over. We've had two motor officers fatalities in several years. One was a presidential escort driving in the rain. Too fast for the conditions and they don't train the motor officers here for wet driving. The other was in a train of 5 officers, following each other way too closely, lack of visibility and collided with a car that stopped to avoid a large box that fell off a truck.....
In practice, No way...
We, as humans adapt(the vast majority) to fit in to society, when the flow of traffic on the road is zooming by us and causing our cars to shake from the wind turbulence, the majority increase the speed to cover the uncomfortableness.
Every place that I have seen cops park here in Hawaii(mostly on Oahu) there primary intention has been to cite people as a revenue generator. i.e. they do not sit out in the open and act as a deterrent, they try to conceal themselves from traffic's view as much as possible, even to the point of parking on non-public no parking posted roads and driveways.
Since I moved here in 89 I have observed two times cops obeying the speed laws. Every other cop I have seen driving and been able to observe their rate of flow have been exceeding the speed limit measurably. I have called a couple in, was told later they were going to calls(one was a McDonalds' big mac call, as I followed the motor officer into the mall parking lot). I have been passed by trains of motor officer(and lane splitting here in Hawaii is ILLEGAL) numerous times, watched the motor officers zooming down the highway, at speeds greater than 80 mph, because they needed to get back to the station as their shift was over. We've had two motor officers fatalities in several years. One was a presidential escort driving in the rain. Too fast for the conditions and they don't train the motor officers here for wet driving. The other was in a train of 5 officers, following each other way too closely, lack of visibility and collided with a car that stopped to avoid a large box that fell off a truck.....
tomshobby
Yoda
Offline
I could not say if this applies to more of the places listed, but I looked up some in my area and they seem more like people with personal problems rather than speed traps. In these areas I know that traffic is routinely 20 mph over the limit and the officers are simply trying to slow it down because of the bad accidents that have taken place.