Flashing High Beams for Speed Trap Warnings

[Tave]

We all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

That's a good point, but do speeding tickets really change behavior either? I'd argue no, if for nothing other than the fact that tickets are fairly common and speeders even moreso.

[Eye of the Tiger]

We all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

That's not necessarily true. If someone just wasn't paying attention to their speed and they get flashed, that might very well wake them up for the rest of the day. Or maybe it won't. The same thing can be said about actually getting a traffic ticket. After the first couple of tickets I got, they no longer have any affect on my behavior at all. For example, after the last speeding ticket I got, once the officer had turned around to go back to his hiding spot, I took off and began driving even faster than I was before.  Partially out of spite, and partially because I now had to make up for all the time that was just wasted, but mostly out of spite.

[James Young]

bing oh writes:

I could really care less how much money the city or the local courts make off of each citation I write. It's not as if I get a bonus check for each ticket, so I'm not padding my paycheck or anything. In my area, the court gets the vast majority of the fines, and the rest (as little as it is) goes to the state and into the city's general fund, so my department doesn't directly benefit from the fines either.

But how many of those thousands of speed traps and legitimate municipalities that enhance their treasury with speeding fines do keep the money? 

In the end, even if I write 1000 tickets a month, it would neither put me in a new vehicle in my driveway at home nor would it get me a new cruiser to drive at work.

What about if you wrote zero tickets?  How long would you keep your job?

Compaired to the amount of the department's budget that just comes from taxes, the cash we get from fines is laughably paltry.

Yet, there are thousands of places that created their own police departments just to collect fines and where the fines are a critical part of their ?budget.?  Remember, they have just as much authority as any state trooper in America and the money they extract is just as real as for any citation that you issue.

Speed enforcement and the fines related to getting a ticket are intended to change driving behavior. Punishment is one way to do that.

We have known for years that citations do not alter long-term driving behavior, which is predicated upon the calculus of the car, the driver and the environment.  Consider, for example, that a two-lane roadway in upgraded to a four-lane divided highway; speeds increase with the improvement, yet the fatality rate will invariably drop.  If you put cops all over that upgraded road, you still couldn?t reduce the optimal and actual driving speeds on it.

[bing_oh]

That's a good point, but do speeding tickets really change behavior either? I'd argue no, if for nothing other than the fact that tickets are fairly common and speeders even moreso.

No, you're absolutely correct that tickets don't always change behavior. Heck, I'm one of the guys who writes the tickets and I speed! However, I think that (at least for most people), citations do have a tendency to moderate behavior to a certain degree. The risk of a ticket keeps most people at a somewhat reasonable...if slightly higher than legal...speed. I don't see alot of 110 mph's in a School Zone.

In the end, punishment through monitary fines is an imperfect system for changing behavior. But, until someone comes up with a better solution, it's what we've got and what will continue to be used.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I don't know about anybody else, but the maine reason I dont' do 110 in School Zones is because I don't want to kill people.
But unless I see a bunch of kids running around near the road, I'm not likely to slow down to 15mph either.

[Eye of the Tiger]

In the end, punishment through monitary fines is an imperfect system for changing behavior. But, until someone comes up with a better solution more profitable solution, it's what we've got and what will continue to be used.

fixed

Dont' worry, Virginia is already on it 

[bing_oh]

But how many of those thousands of speed traps and legitimate municipalities that enhance their treasury with speeding fines do keep the money?

Yet, there are thousands of places that created their own police departments just to collect fines and where the fines are a critical part of their ?budget.?? Remember, they have just as much authority as any state trooper in America and the money they extract is just as real as for any citation that you issue.

?
I don't, personally, agree with municipalities that do speed or other traffic enforcement just for monitary gain. Yes, those departments exist, though they're significantly less common that most people think. Most departments are very similar to the ones I've worked for...they enforce speed and other traffic violations in problem areas with the purpose to try to reduce crashes. AND, in the end, it's my job to enforce the law. That includes the traffic laws. Like I've told people before, if you don't like the laws, complain to the politicians. The cops don't write the laws, we just enforce them.

What about if you wrote zero tickets?? How long would you keep your job?

Depends on the department. Some departments like alot of traffic enforcement, others prefer directed enforcement, and other don't care. Personally, I don't do alot of traffic enforcement and, when I do, it's directed toward finding other violations (OVI, DUS, drug violations, etc).

We have known for years that citations do not alter long-term driving behavior, which is predicated upon the calculus of the car, the driver and the environment.? Consider, for example, that a two-lane roadway in upgraded to a four-lane divided highway; speeds increase with the improvement, yet the fatality rate will invariably drop.? If you put cops all over that upgraded road, you still couldn?t reduce the optimal and actual driving speeds on it.

Once again, it's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. Just because enforcement won't stop all violations isn't a reason to stop enforcement all together. Arresting, prosecuting, and (potentially) executing murders won't stop all murders from happening, but I still do it. And, before somebody even says it, no, speeding isn't murder. It's just an example.

[Raza]

But you're enforcing laws which shouldn't even be in place because they're not logical...

[bing_oh]

But you're enforcing laws which shouldn't even be in place because they're not logical...

Raza talking about logic. Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Champ]

I would have a very hard time writing speeding tickets as a police officer.  Sure it's illegal, but I don't like being hypocritical.

I would, however, like to write tickets for improper merging (my best guess at the correct name).  People who merge onto the highway going under 40mph need to rethink some things...

LEO's here:  Do you ever write tickets or pull someone over to tell them merging at stupidly low speeds is dangerous and shouldn't happen?

[Raza]

Raza talking about logic. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm completely logical all the time. 

[Raza]

I would have a very hard time writing speeding tickets as a police officer.? Sure it's illegal, but I don't like being hypocritical.

I would, however, like to write tickets for improper merging (my best guess at the correct name).? People who merge onto the highway going under 40mph need to rethink some things...

LEO's here:? Do you ever write tickets or pull someone over to tell them merging at stupidly low speeds is dangerous and shouldn't happen?

I do that all the time!

[etypeJohn]

No, you're absolutely correct that tickets don't always change behavior. Heck, I'm one of the guys who writes the tickets and I speed! However, I think that (at least for most people), citations do have a tendency to moderate behavior to a certain degree. The risk of a ticket keeps most people at a somewhat reasonable...if slightly higher than legal...speed. I don't see alot of 110 mph's in a School Zone.

In the end, punishment through monitary fines is an imperfect system for changing behavior. But, until someone comes up with a better solution, it's what we've got and what will continue to be used.

Still though at the end  of the day its about the money.  I last got a speeding ticket in 01.  New vehicle, I wasn't used to it, I was 52 in a 45 zone.  Cop steps out of the driveway and zaps me with instant on.  I tell him my new car story.  He says, sorry I hve to ticket you but he then tells me how to beat the ticket.  Deferred adudication.  No other tickets for 3 months and this one goes away.    One can also take defensive driving to wipe a ticket off the books.  In each case the true pain of the ticket, higher insurance premiums, is negated but the jusisdiction gets its money in fees.  Its a game, they might as well call it a speed tax and be done with it.

Around here I rarely see cops setting up in areas of heavy traffic, areas where one might argue speed enforcement would have the greatest impact on safety.  No, 99 out of 100 times they set up on roads where the speed limit is low in comparison to the capabilities of the road (say where the speed limit changes from 55 to 45) and traffic is light, so they can easily pick out the offender.

Funny how study after study shows that the great majority of people tend to drive the safe speed for road conditions regardless of the posted limit. 

Where you guys out to be is in traffic, nailing the tailgater, the guy trying to weave through traffic at 20 MPH over the average, the dope reading a sales report and talking on his cell phone while pretenting to drive. 

[93JC]

I'm completely logical all the time.?

No one is completely logical all the time.

Even ifcar's logic algorithms fail once in a while.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Well, I am never unlogical 

[the nameless one]

But you're enforcing laws which shouldn't even be in place because they're not logical...

Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

That is somewhat logical. What isn't logical is getting a ticket for 80mph on a rural limited-access highway with very light traffic.

[ChrisV]

I'll just get this out of the way right off the bat. I could really care less how much money the city or the local courts make off of each citation I write. It's not as if I get a bonus check for each ticket, so I'm not padding my paycheck or anything.

BS. How long would you HAVE the job if you stopped writing tickets? Hmm? It's part of what pays you, even if you don't think it does.

Speed enforcement and the fines related to getting a ticket are intended to change driving behavior. Punishment is one way to do that.

Warning about that punishment is another, And really what's the difference between warning someone that a speed trap is up ahead by flashing at them, or warning them that a speed trap is oput there if you were to see them at home before they left on that errand? or telling someone to be careful because the police announced enhanced enforcment? In every case, it's telling someone to be careful. So the difference is simply warning someone you don't know vs someone you DO. If you really want people to slow down in that area, then it's the same end result.

We all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

And we all know that seeing the cruiser doesn't change the behavior any longer than till that cruiser is no longer visible, so yes, whether the person gets a warning and slows down or sees the cruiser and slows down, it DOES accomplish the same thing. The ONLY reason why it would be illegal is because with a flash warning the officer doesn't have the opportunity to write the ticket.

[Soup DeVille]

Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

I'm sorry, but I missed the part where people brought that shit up.

Oh yeah, it was you: because that's the only trick your pony knows, aint it?

Try actually reading any of these posts, and you'll see people are talking specifically about highways.

[ChrisV]

Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

That doesn't make all speed related laws logical. If they were, you wouldn't have officers even here admitting they don't always obey the speed laws. Why? Because most of them are arbitrary and not set by engineering principles, but financial ones, and '50s era safety ideas. (e.g. the Washington State Patrol had a pamphlet out that stated flat out that it took 900 ft to stop from 65 mph in a typical passenger car! I wish I still had a copy to scan...)

[ChrisV]

 
Like I've told people before, if you don't like the laws, complain to the politicians. The cops don't write the laws, we just enforce them.

We do complain to politicians, And we complain on forums like this with specific areas set up to vent about traffic laws.

 
Once again, it's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. Just because enforcement won't stop all violations isn't a reason to stop enforcement all together. Arresting, prosecuting, and (potentially) executing murders won't stop all murders from happening, but I still do it. And, before somebody even says it, no, speeding isn't murder. It's just an example.

To use that analogy, what if I warned someone that they better not kill somone because it's stupid and they might get caught? I walk into a convenience store and someone tries to rob it. Shoudl I get in trouble if I tell teh robber that he'd better not kill anyone, as he's gonna get caught? Am I illegally getting in the way of a cop catching a potential murderer? Maybe that murder is only deflected by a week or month, but still happens? Is the logic that I, as a civilian, shouldn't tell people not to kill others?

It's just a speeding ticket and I'm warning someone to slow down. Me getting in trouble for that seems like the officer is being petty.

[Eye of the Tiger]

+ a bazillion, ChrisV, + a bazillion million

[the nameless one]

I'm sorry, but I missed the part where people brought that shit up.

Oh yeah, it was you: because that's the only trick your pony knows, aint it?

Try actually reading any of these posts, and you'll see people are talking specifically about highways.

Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.
quote author=ChrisV link=topic=10389.msg524832#msg524832 date=1185834594]
That doesn't make all speed related laws logical. If they were, you wouldn't have officers even here admitting they don't always obey the speed laws. Why? Because most of them are arbitrary and not set by engineering principles, but financial ones, and '50s era safety ideas. (e.g. the Washington State Patrol had a pamphlet out that stated flat out that it took 900 ft to stop from 65 mph in a typical passenger car! I wish I still had a copy to scan...)

My main issue with your comment is that many of you guys apparently fail to realize that not every car out there is modern, well maintained or high performance. i see plenty of cars and trucks out there on the road that probably have no better performance than the cars of the 1950s you mentioned. Aside from that, you STILL have things that wont change with improved technology...issues like cars outrunning their headlights at night which is already a problem. Even if they did away with all daytime speed limits, issues like that would still require speed limits at night, for large trucks, etc.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.

Bullshit

[Soup DeVille]

Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.

So you can read my mind too, huh Kreskin?

What, are you afraid to argue for the speed limits on highways so much you need to change the subject?

[the nameless one]

Bullshit

Not BS at all.

So you can read my mind too, huh Kreskin?

What, are you afraid to argue for the speed limits on highways so much you need to change the subject?

I don't see where the subject is being changed at all. Nor do i see where the discussion was being limited to highways. While we are at it, by highways are you strictly talking about Interstates, or are we including, for instance, state routes? Should those people on those routes not be able to expect some relief from unfettrered speeding?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Not BS at all.

Ok.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't see where the subject is being changed at all. Nor do i see where the discussion was being limited to highways. While we are at it, by highways are you strictly talking about Interstates, or are we including, for instance, state routes? Should those people on those routes not be able to expect some relief from unfettrered speeding?

Then start reading at the beginning again and figure out what the subject is. It's OK, you can take your time.

And then maybe you can point out for me the instances where people endorsed "unfettered" speeding in "school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc."

Or if you can't do that, put your strawman down and learn to actually think about what you're writing.

[the nameless one]

And then maybe you can point out for me the instances where people endorsed "unfettered" speeding in "school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc."

Or if you can't do that, put your strawman down and learn to actually think about what you're writing.

Its not a strawman; it was in earlier threads and i don't feel like digging back through them to prove my point.
i've read this thread from the beginning, no need to go back through it again.

from the OP:

Yesterday, I was on a local road with a speed limit that is far too low. 

"Local road". Please tell me how thats an interstate being discussed, again?

[Soup DeVille]

Its not a strawman; it was in earlier threads and i don't feel like digging back through them to prove my point.
i've read this thread from the beginning, no need to go back through it again.

So do you have a problem distinguishing between people or distinguishing between threads?

Or is it that if one person says one thing once, then you universally apply that statement to everyone?