This weekend our traffic enforcement

[rohan]

I would think that to a certain extent public relations- non-criminal public at least (they do exist)- is at least some part of every officer's job.

Doesn't mean we hav e to like them trust them or even be nice to them.? It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.? ?No where in my general orders book does it say I have tob e nice or like or trust them or even care if they trust me- all it says is that I can't be rude it even recognizes the need to curse and use exceptionally vulgar language "when needed.? The deputy on scene is the best qualifier to when or if this sort of language is needed and whether it will be useful to his or her fulfilling his duties."? If it aint in there-?


A prime example of why we don't care if you trust or not is the ongoing debate in the "interesting" thread.? ?The public won't even listen or attempt to understand police or even what citizens basic rights are and who those rights pertain to.

[Soup DeVille]

Doesn't mean we hav e to like them trust them or even be nice to them.? It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.? ?No where in my general orders book does it say I have tob e nice or like or trust them or even care if they trust me- all it says is that I can't be rude it even recognizes the need to curse and use exceptionally vulgar language "when needed.? The deputy on scene is the best qualifier to when or if this sort of language is needed and whether it will be useful to his or her fulfilling his duties."? If it aint in there-?


A prime example of why we don't care if you trust or not is the ongoing debate in the "interesting" thread.? ?The public won't even listen or attempt to understand police or even what citizens basic rights are and who those rights pertain to.

No, I've been completely trollish and unwilling to discuss that matter intelligently at all.

[dazzleman]

Doesn't mean we hav e to like them trust them or even be nice to them.? It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.? ?No where in my general orders book does it say I have tob e nice or like or trust them or even care if they trust me- all it says is that I can't be rude it even recognizes the need to curse and use exceptionally vulgar language "when needed.? The deputy on scene is the best qualifier to when or if this sort of language is needed and whether it will be useful to his or her fulfilling his duties."? If it aint in there-?


A prime example of why we don't care if you trust or not is the ongoing debate in the "interesting" thread.? ?The public won't even listen or attempt to understand police or even what citizens basic rights are and who those rights pertain to.

Rohan, I think you're wrong in your attitude.

Much of the public is inclined to trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are dealing with criminals.

You seem to be lumping the criminals and public into one group hostile to the police.  That is really not the case at all, but if you believe that and act accordingly, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

If there are reasonable traffic laws and reasonable enforcement tactics, most people will accept it without too much complaint if and when they do get tagged by one of the guys in blue.  The problem is when the laws are perceived by a large number of people to be unreasonable, and 'gotcha' tactics are used to enforce them.

Some of the views expressed here are pretty doctrinaire and shouldn't be taken as an indication of the general public attitude.  Still, you should re-examine your own attitude, because over the longer term, that attitude could be a danger to your career.

[rohan]

Rohan, I think you're wrong in your attitude.

Much of the public is inclined to trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are dealing with criminals.

You seem to be lumping the criminals and public into one group hostile to the police.  That is really not the case at all, but if you believe that and act accordingly, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

If there are reasonable traffic laws and reasonable enforcement tactics, most people will accept it without too much complaint if and when they do get tagged by one of the guys in blue.  The problem is when the laws are perceived by a large number of people to be unreasonable, and 'gotcha' tactics are used to enforce them.

Some of the views expressed here are pretty doctrinaire and shouldn't be taken as an indication of the general public attitude.  Still, you should re-examine your own attitude, because over the longer term, that attitude could be a danger to your career.

I was pretty darned grumpy when I wrote that- I was closing out a 12 hour shift - 8 hrs regular puls OT to boot.  I probably should have left the site when I started getting frustrated- even though that;'s a good description of how I feel it's not completely true- I do care but only because I'm a supervisor- if I was still just a line deputy I wouldn't care at all if people trusted me because most people don't trust cops and nothing I'll ever do will change that-  And trying to change that perception just isn't my job as a line dep..  Sorry- just how I feel.

[dazzleman]

I was pretty darned grumpy when I wrote that- I was closing out a 12 hour shift - 8 hrs regular puls OT to boot.  I probably should have left the site when I started getting frustrated- even though that;'s a good description of how I feel it's not completely true- I do care but only because I'm a supervisor- if I was still just a line deputy I wouldn't care at all if people trusted me because most people don't trust cops and nothing I'll ever do will change that-  And trying to change that perception just isn't my job as a line dep..  Sorry- just how I feel.

I think you have it backwards to an extent.

The line deputy is the person the public is most likely to deal with.

Criminals don't trust cops, for good reason, but most law-abiding citizens do.  Most traffic violators are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it's only a hard-core fringe that doesn't trust the police.

I think the problem most LEOs have is that they don't often deal with the better portions of the public; they deal most often with the scumbags.  It's easy to suppose, after a while, that these people are representative of the public, and act accordingly.  But that is a major mistake.  Most people out there support the police, and as Catman has said correctly, the police depend upon public trust in a larger sense to do their job.

There's no sense making an enemy out of people who will generally regard you as a friend.  And most of the public will, even if you give them a speeding ticket on occasion.

[rohan]

I think you have it backwards to an extent.

The line deputy is the person the public is most likely to deal with.

Criminals don't trust cops, for good reason, but most law-abiding citizens do.  Most traffic violators are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it's only a hard-core fringe that doesn't trust the police.

I think the problem most LEOs have is that they don't often deal with the better portions of the public; they deal most often with the scumbags.  It's easy to suppose, after a while, that these people are representative of the public, and act accordingly.  But that is a major mistake.  Most people out there support the police, and as Catman has said correctly, the police depend upon public trust in a larger sense to do their job.

There's no sense making an enemy out of people who will generally regard you as a friend.  And most of the public will, even if you give them a speeding ticket on occasion.

Unfortunately my experiences are much different than your perception- most people don't trust cops- especially in urban areas.

As much as I like and respect Greg he doesn't work those areas.  Maybe he did in the past but he's working an upscale probably mostly white area from what I've read.

[rohan]

Unfortunately my experiences are much different than your perception- most people don't trust cops- especially in urban areas.

As much as I like and respect Greg he doesn't work those areas.  Maybe he did in the past but he's working an upscale probably mostly white area from what I've read.

Sorry to quote my own post- but I'm going to anyway- I think I should go on with that and say thatmost white people do trust the poliec as part of how they were raised but most minorities don't.  Hell- Ididn't even trust the police as a white guy until I met Tony and then it took him helping me before I trusted him and then I still didn't trust him for a while.

[dazzleman]

Unfortunately my experiences are much different than your perception- most people don't trust cops- especially in urban areas.

As much as I like and respect Greg he doesn't work those areas.  Maybe he did in the past but he's working an upscale probably mostly white area from what I've read.

You're right about the difference in trust for the police between whites and minorities.  Whites definitely have a much higher trust of the police.

Greg does work in a mostly white area, but I'm not sure if it's upscale or not.  From what he describes, it's pretty blue collar.  That's the type of area I thought you worked in -- white blue collar.

[Raza]

You're right about the difference in trust for the police between whites and minorities.  Whites definitely have a much higher trust of the police.

That's because white people are stupid.

[Tave]

It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses. 

But the public is your boss. They pay your check and make the laws you enforce.

I would think any civil servant should understand the need for good public-relations.

[rohan]

But the public is your boss. They pay your check and make the laws you enforce.

I would think any civil servant should understand the need for good public-relations.

The public is not my boss- the patrol LT is- his boss is the Operations Captain- his boss is the Operations Major- his boss is the Chief Deputy- his boss is the Undersheriff- his boss is the Sheriff- and his boss is the County Board of Commissioners.  The public only pays me- they don't get to tell me what to do and I don't answer to them I answer to my chain of command.

[rohan]

You're right about the difference in trust for the police between whites and minorities.  Whites definitely have a much higher trust of the police.

Greg does work in a mostly white area, but I'm not sure if it's upscale or not.  From what he describes, it's pretty blue collar.  That's the type of area I thought you worked in -- white blue collar.

I work a very diverse area with urban suburban and rural areas.  I have people making probably several million a year to people making less than probably $5000 a year.  And we treat them all the same- or at least try to - no matter how it looks to the public.  In all honestly - our Sheriff is a great patrol officers boss- he has the PR button turned down because he's a elected official who's only requirements by law are to operate a jail and investigate drowinings.  If people don't like what he's doing he can just pull the patrols altogether and he has threatened to do it a couple times  legend has it.

[Tave]

The public is not my boss- the patrol LT is- his boss is the Operations Captain- his boss is the Operations Major- his boss is the Chief Deputy- his boss is the Undersheriff- his boss is the Sheriff- and his boss is the County Board of Commissioners.  The public only pays me- they don't get to tell me what to do and I don't answer to them I answer to my chain of command.

Your superiors, and ergo you, must certainly ultimately answer to the public. What do you think the County Board of Commissioners is? What do you think a Sheriff is? Who do you think makes state statutes?

The answer to the first two questions is ELECTED OFFICIALS, as is the state legislature, which is the answer to the last question.


I know someone who thinks too many people believe government exists as an authority figure, as something which tells them what to do. Government only does what the voters let it.

[Tave]

Rohan, I've had this conversation with hounddog before. I'm not stupid enough to believe I can stroll into your office and fire you, but don't play the fool and refuse to recognize law enforcement as a civic institution. Such a system is ultimately created, operated, and directed by the will of the people. If over time you foster ill public-relations among law-abiding citizens, then you may very well find your system changed.

[rohan]

Your superiors, and ergo you, must certainly ultimately answer to the public. What do you think the County Board of Commissioners is? What do you think a Sheriff is? Who do you think makes state statutes?

The answer to the first two questions is ELECTED OFFICIALS, as is the state legislature, which is the answer to the last question.


I know someone who thinks too many people believe government exists as an authority figure, as something which tells them what to do. Government only does what the voters let it.

If you say so.  

[rohan]

Rohan, I've had this conversation with hounddog before. I'm not stupid enough to believe I can stroll into your office and fire you, but don't play the fool and refuse to recognize law enforcement as a civic institution. Such a system is ultimately created, operated, and directed by the will of the people. If over time you foster ill public-relations among law-abiding citizens, then you may very well find your system changed.

Everything changes- everything always everything whether you are trusted or not.  I'm only here for a few years to do an almost impossible where no one is EVER happy with what we do.  I frankly lost my desire to care many years ago like most of the veteran offciers I know - work with - and have worked with.  Most cops really dislike the public after time on the road and couldn't really care what the public thinks of us.  You willalways need us-

Tony was my FTO and one of the things he taught me was that we are hire to enforce the law not be popular- if you want to be popular you're oin the wrong line of work. 
I agree completely with that. 

[Tave]

If you say so.  

Excuse me?

[rohan]

Excuse me?

I'm sorry- let me make that more clear-

If       
you
say
so.




Is that better?

[Tave]

You willalways need us-

That's really not the point here. We don't need specific officers. Police reform has happened before and will happen again, usually after public incident. When tensions build between enforcement and community, clashes occur. That is part of our history, but no one is the better for it.

For goodness sake departments even have their own division: internal affairs, to make sure the police is servicing the public as they should.

You're being deliberately obstinate, rohan. I realize you don't have to like me to do your job, and frankly I don't have a problem with that. Whatever. But there's an obvious need for any public agency, like the police force, to foster good public-relations. That's my only point, and one I find so obvious it amazes me I should have to write it out. I'd of thought it a no-brainer. Even if you aren't concerned about it, you can be damn sure your Sheriff is, at least if he wants to be elected next term.

[Tave]

I'm sorry- let me make that more clear-

If       
you
say
so.




Is that better?

Uh no, it still doesn't make any sense in context. I have no "say" in that sheriffs and commissioners are elected, and public institutions answer to their people in our system of government. All are verifiable facts.

[rohan]

That's really not the point here. We don't need specific officers. Police reform has happened before and will happen again, usually after public incident. When tensions build between enforcement and community, clashes occur. That is part of our history, but no one is the better for it.

For goodness sake departments even have their own division: internal affairs, to make sure the police is servicing the public as they should.

You're being deliberately obstinate, rohan. I realize you don't have to like me to do your job, and frankly I don't have a problem with that. Whatever. But there's an obvious need for any public agency, like the police force, to foster good public-relations. That's my only point, and one I find so obvious it amazes me I should have to write it out. I'd of thought it a no-brainer. Even if you aren't concerned about it, you can be damn sure your Sheriff is, at least if he wants to be elected next term.

No- I'm not being deliberately anything- other than honest.  The internal affairs- usually just standard detectives who are handed a case and told to investigate- isn't looking to see if we've lived up to public expectations- they're looking at #1 did we break any local state or federal laws  #2 did we break policy or general orders  #3 was it intentional  #4 was it done with malice  #5 totality of circumstances  #6 recommendation and remedy.   And fostering good public relations with our communtiy was what our putting out extensive traffic enforcement was about this last weekend well two weekends ago now.  So I still don't care if they trust me- and I don't have to because they got what they wanted and are happy.  And we didn't do anything more than pound on traffic law violators- but it hardly makes them trust us anymore than the day before we started it.

[Tave]

No- I'm not being deliberately anything- other than honest.  The internal affairs- usually just standard detectives who are handed a case and told to investigate- isn't looking to see if we've lived up to public expectations- they're looking at #1 did we break any local state or federal laws  #2 did we break policy or general orders  #3 was it intentional  #4 was it done with malice  #5 totality of circumstances  #6 recommendation and remedy.

Those are the public's expectations, genius. When policemen break crimes and get away with it, that's bad public relations. That's something the public doesn't want to have happen.




I don't give a shit if you're not friendly with some clown getting a traffic ticket. But I bet you yourself practice positive relations with law-abiding members of society. Are you at least professional with the petty infractor? Do you treat the spousel abuser the same as the spouse? Are you warm and obliging to the old lady who comes in to report a theft? How about the mother and child involved in an auto accident, how do you treat them?


My guess is you treat the honest citizen fairly well, if curt.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Those are the public's expectations, genius. When policemen break crimes and get away with it, that's bad public relations. That's something the public doesn't want to have happen.




I don't give a shit if you're not friendly with some clown getting a traffic ticket. But I bet you yourself practice positive relations with law-abiding members of society. Are you at least professional with the petty infractor? Do you treat the spousel abuser the same as the spouse? Are you warm and obliging to the old lady who comes in to report a theft? How about the mother and child involved in an auto accident, how do you treat them?


My guess is you treat the honest citizen fairly well, if curt.

Quit mouthing off to the LEO, or he'll pistol whip yo' ass.

[rohan]

Those are the public's expectations, genius. When policemen break crimes and get away with it, that's bad public relations. That's something the public doesn't want to have happen.




I don't give a shit if you're not friendly with some clown getting a traffic ticket. But I bet you yourself practice positive relations with law-abiding members of society. Are you at least professional with the petty infractor? Do you treat the spousel abuser the same as the spouse? Are you warm and obliging to the old lady who comes in to report a theft? How about the mother and child involved in an auto accident, how do you treat them?


My guess is you treat the honest citizen fairly well, if curt.

No- I'm referring to them wanting us to do everything they say and all the other bs that goes with that- I guess I thought that's what you meant- and like I said before I and my guys treat everyone the same- everyone.  And you wouldn't call me officer friendly if that's what your pionting at. 
And I've never been one to toot my own "brain-power" horn- never claimed to be any smarter than your average pet- now when it comes to my training and experience that might be different because I'm pretty proud of both.

[James Young]

Recognition that cars and drivers have limits hardly undermines my argument that speed limits are unnecessary, counterproductive, costly and widely abused by enforcement because that very assumption is built into the reasoning behind engineering limits such as the 85th percentile for urban roadways and the newly-emerging 95th percentile on rural and interstate-grade roadways.  JY

Rohan respnds:

Do you have a link to a valid source for this?   Somehting like a government inquiry showing what you claim? [sic]

No, and I don?t have a link for, say, European History either.  For you to seek a single, simple link to a field of inquiry as complicated as public policy vis-?-vis enforcement behavior is na?ve at best, delusional at worst but certainly dishonest.
Do we know that speed limits are unnecessary?  Yes, because study after study and the entire body of statistics tell us that neither absolute levels nor changes in limits lead to any predictable and/or significant changes in key measures of vehicular safety.  There is simply no connection.  We also know from anecdotal evidence and empirical information that the unlimited portions of the autobahen, autostrada and autoroutes in Europe have slightly lower fatality rates than their American counterpart.

Do we know that speed limits are counterproductive and costly?  Yes.  Several groups have tried to estimate the cost of the NMSL (55/65), including you own Michigan State University.  The cost to our economy of that little fiasco was over a trillion dollars, money and time better spent on research into causes and treatment for cancer, on efforts to prevent shoddy products from killing us or on educating our young folks.
 
Instead we spent it on using more enforcement and their cool electronic toys in a vain and counterproductive effort to force everybody to slow down.  Another result was a plague of chickensh!t small villages creating their own ?police departments to cash in on the new boom in speeding citations.  The repercussion for enforcement is that these citations are perceived as illegitimate with the attendant disrespect for all laws and all who enforce them.  History once again shows that not all laws are equally valid.  It was a mistake and a waste then and to continue it now is just as dumb.

Do we know that speed limits are widely abused by enforcement?  Certainly.  I?ve already outlined the citation for profit schemes of those villages that degrade legitimate enforcement efforts elsewhere.   We also have a series of legitimate municipalities that openly tout traffic citations as a way to generate revenue:  Washington, DC; Tulsa, OK; Phoenix, AZ; Aurora and Lakewood, CO; etc

But how often do we find that speeding stops are but a mere excuse to take a closer look at a car and its occupants, a very real degradation of the fourth amendment.  Perhaps you and your brethren do not take the Constitution seriously but I and million like me do.  Perhaps you feel that any tactic that gets drugs out of the public domain is legitimized by the end justifies the means mentality of politicians and police officers that the law is the law.  Period. End of story.  Perhaps you should reconsider the whole illegal drugs phenomenon and make them all legal and free to addicts with treatment.  Do you ever really think not only outside the box but outside your own realm of consciousness?  Remember, the early bird gets the worm but the early worm gets eaten.  The reality is there for you to see but you must remove your blinders and tell all your sycophant buddies to STFU.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/dist1/planning/TrafficStudies/2hj01!.pdf  Note that this is the censored version of the report popularly known as the Parker Report, with changes forced by FHWA because they did not like the results reported in the original.  The title is ?Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections,? and the simplest conclusion is that changes don?t matter.  It doesn?t work but continues to be the near singular focus of traffic enforcement.  

Nearly every driver on the planet acts in his own self interest and self preservation, despite continuing claims from enforcement that a majority of them are doing stupid, self-destructive things.   The very few drivers who actually are self-destructive are not the real target of most enforcement effort.

Right- like driving well over 100 mph on secondary roads- drag racing- drifting on public roads- doing wheelies on motorcycles at well over speedlimits- driving drunk- should I go on?  Your point here is BS because we do target those very things or at the very least take action wehen found.

Hey, you forgot to put a school zone in there.  Yep, those cops hiding in the bushes running instant-on radar are really looking for all those things, which are all very rare.  According to the Texas DPS in a report to the federal Department of Justice regarding racial profiling practices and in which they were forced to reveal information that they had always contended was proprietary, speeding citations outnumbered all other citations, including commercial trucking violations and secondary citations for no insurance and no seatbelt, combined by more than two to one.  This is but one agency in one state but is certainly indicative of the way that enforcement is conducted.  Similarly, all those little villages with new police departments prey al most exclusively on speeders because it is common and it is easy to detect.  It is also very lucrative for those villages but degrades the real professionals in enforcement.

Also note that while urban police departments perform routine patrol not focused on speeders, the DPSs and the little villages who make money from speed traps focus almost exclusively on speeding.  Texas DPS does not perform routine patrols in neighborhoods and those little villages leave routine patrols and investigations to the county sheriffs.

In short, you don?t ?target? those things but will address them if you happen to come across them in your other duties.

Thus, it is you who has failed to incorporate some critical changes in conditions into your analysis because they undermine your argument.

More blah blah blah from the blah blah blah king.  Some sort of proof?

Look for yourself.  We have collapsible crash barriers, breakaway signage, rumble-strips on roadway edges, medians and center barriers, reflective paint, improved lighting, modifiable electronic signage, Bott's dots, multiple lanes and fewer intersections with cross-traffic, etc.  We have radial-ply tires, shatterproof glass, disc brakes, independent suspension, more precise steering, seatbelts, multiple air bags, better lighting, etc.

We have all this improved technology aimed at the simple purpose of allowing us to go faster with improved safety, yet enforcement, insurance companies and the other anti-destination leaguers continue to ignore the reality in order to champion their blind obsession with speed control.  Once again, it goes back to institutional behavior that has lost sight of its original mission (to improve traffic safety) but continues to dwell on something that no longer exists.  Technology has allowed us to supersede the constraints that existed in the 1950s but people such as NHTSA, the National Safety Council, the insurance industry and the enforcement nation cannot and has not incorporated those critical changes into their thinking.

You should be able to see those changes that I outlined and synthesize them with your own reality.

No, the really sad truth is that the typical officer who writes the report of anything less than a fatality crash does not generally have any knowledge of crush factors, skid distances, adhesion coefficients, crumple zones of particular cars, etc.  They write reports.  Period.  They check off boxes on a standardized form.  Their ?investigation? is limited in scope and in depth.

Link ?  Can you proove this or is it more of your blatant lies?

Yep, it?s all just a big lie to confuse you.  Think about your own department.  Think how rarely an accident report is completed by an expert in crash reconstruction, supported by their calculations and/or the new PC programs?  Then compare that with the reports completed, filed, distributed to the public and sent to NHTSA as required by law from officers who are hopelessly naive about accident causes and use excessive speed as the politically safe reason for the crash.

I don?t believe that for a minute.  I?ve already done the math for you.  And the feds paid for a good chunk of your time.  And I also don?t believe that such campaigns are for anything more elegant or worthwhile than a good PR pitch to the public to make them think that you?re really doing something.

Really?  Did you come up with $33,801.60 dollars?  Because that's what it cost to put  guys out for 8 shifts at 8 hours at $25.15 X 3.5.  We received exactly $$15,000 from the federal government.  And considering our #1 request this last summer was for more traffic enforcement from our tax paying citizens - they got exactly what they wanted.

I outlined my assumptions in that particular post, still available for you to see.  $25.15 is $52,312 a year, or some 63% above the $32,000 that had been indicated in other threads within these fora. The rest of your math is unclear.

TNO also asserts that more speed enforcement is the number one request from citizens.  If that is truly the case, what is it that sets TNO and you apart from the rest of that nation where the desire is just to be left alone.  I used to listen to a bunch of 80+ year-olds in Tulsa who complained right and left about the speed traps on Tulsa streets.  ?Just let the traffic flow.?

Speed is a factor in everything having to do with vehicles because that is their purpose:  to elevate the speed at which man can travel.   Even according to your own data, speed too fast for conditions is but a paltry contributor to crashes.  And, of course, even that is not what enforcement actually looks for, instead taking the low-hanging fruit of ?speeders,? who happen to exceed an arbitrary number.

That's because "speed too fast for conditions is just about only written when the roads are icy/snowy/drifted and regular speed enforcement is almost impossible.

In harsher terms, you just agreed with me that enforcement focus is on speed control rather than real crash prevention.

Oh well- and frankly- I don't care if the public trusts me or not.  That's not my job and it's never going to be- I'm paid to handle officers and the occasional report- period.  Most officers I know also don't care either- why- it's not our job to care it's our job to enforce the law.  Not write law- not change law- not argue law- not argue a laws merits- ENFORCEMENT.

I disagree because that view is too narrow and too shortsighted.  Your job should be to improve the public safety, not just traffic but overall, within the confines of protecting civil liberties.  That?s a tall order and a lot of your brethren are not equipped to even understand that, much less do it.

The other posters have already pounced on you for your attitude so I need not pile on further

And by the way- hows that 50+ years of experience in this field from the time you were 12 treatin ya?

It?s treating me very well.  The ?field? that you reference is too vague.  What I was writing about was the scientific application of public policy to a problem in order to actually mitigate the problem rather than to merely sustain institutions dependent upon the status quo.  To learn that we should develop measures, rules and mechanisms that actually work and to use the feedback in that dynamic system to judge which are effective and which are not is a thing of beauty.  You should actually try applying it to traffic safety sometime.

For your introductory course to public policy as applied to traffic safety:

www.motorists.org

www.nhtsa.gov  See ?Traffic Safety Fact Sheets,? such as http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2005.PDF for the latest (2005).  CAUTION:  do not get lost in their verbiage.  NHTSA is a virulently anti-speed organization but the data summarized does not support their own verbiage.

Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Texas Transportation Institute.

SENSE  Society for Safety by Education, Not Speed Enforcement

[Eye of the Tiger]

Once again, I must @ James

We need to take away the power of pure speed enforcement for the sake of itself, and just focus on reckless driving. I truly believe road safety would not be negatively affected, while respect for LEO's on traffic duty would increase exponentially. Unforunately, that also means we have to fix our entire legal system, or we'd have thousands of Rudy Stanko cases.

[rohan]

No, and I don?t have a link for, say, European History either.  For you to seek a single, simple link to a field of inquiry as complicated as public policy vis-?-vis enforcement behavior is na?ve at best, delusional at worst but certainly dishonest.

I'm shocked you can't prove your anti police BS.

The cost to our economy of that little fiasco was over a trillion dollars, money and time better spent on research into causes and treatment for cancer, on efforts to prevent shoddy products from killing us or on educating our young folks.

1st- Link showing it cost over a trillion dollars- not saying it's not true I'ld jus tlike to see if you can prove it.  And- yes let's throw more money at the education system because as we all know more money for teachers is the answer. 

Think again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
 

Instead we spent it on using more enforcement and their cool electronic toys in a vain and counterproductive effort to force everybody to slow down.  Another result was a plague of chickensh!t small villages creating their own ?police departments to cash in on the new boom in speeding citations.  

Do you have some proof that was the ONLY reason the pd's were created?  Could it possibly be that maybe these small villages wanted police services?  No- couldn't possibly be that.   ???

But how often do we find that speeding stops are but a mere excuse to take a closer look at a car and its occupants, a very real degradation of the fourth amendment.  Perhaps you and your brethren do not take the Constitution seriously but I and million like me do.  Perhaps you feel that any tactic that gets drugs out of the public domain is legitimized by the end justifies the means mentality of politicians and police officers that the law is the law.  Period. End of story.  Perhaps you should reconsider the whole illegal drugs phenomenon and make them all legal and free to addicts with treatment.  Do you ever really think not only outside the box but outside your own realm of consciousness?  Remember, the early bird gets the worm but the early worm gets eaten.  The reality is there for you to see but you must remove your blinders and tell all your sycophant buddies to STFU.

Yeah- it's the police who are fanatics.  Not guys like you.  And by the way so your sitting in prison somewhere for a drug charge?   

Think how rarely an accident report is completed by an expert in crash reconstruction, supported by their calculations and/or the new PC programs?  

I'll answer this one honestly- every patrol deputy is sent to both AI-1 and AI-2 and before they go to them they aren't allowed to fill out anything more than car/deer and simple fender bender stuff and all of that is reviewed by a shift AI and then by a Sgt and then sent on to our Traffic Crash Division which is a fancy name for a deputy who is our most trained and highest level AI.  But all those measure s are standard - it gives him a chance to review our info and determine if we've made good sound choices.  But I have to admit we do take lots of crashes.

I outlined my assumptions in that particular post, still available for you to see.  $25.15 is $52,312 a year, or some 63% above the $32,000 that had been indicated in other threads within these fora. The rest of your math is unclear.

Ithink you know hwo to do the math to get the number of hours and come up with the same number I did for all the hours we worked over the weekedn and how much it cost.  I may not be able to explain it well but don't try to play that game.   What is your point about the $32,000?

TNO also asserts that more speed enforcement is the number one request from citizens.  If that is truly the case, what is it that sets TNO and you apart from the rest of that nation where the desire is just to be left alone.  I used to listen to a bunch of 80+ year-olds in Tulsa who complained right and left about the speed traps on Tulsa streets.  ?Just let the traffic flow.?

I don't know what TNO is and I really don't care- I just know what our citizens want and complain about more than anything else.  And that's all 80+ year olds have to do is complain about things.   

Speed is a factor in everything having to do with vehicles because that is their purpose:  to elevate the speed at which man can travel.   Even according to your own data, speed too fast for conditions is but a paltry contributor to crashes.  And, of course, even that is not what enforcement actually looks for, instead taking the low-hanging fruit of ?speeders,? who happen to exceed an arbitrary number.

What data is mine?  I didn't present any data so don't call it mine. 

In harsher terms, you just agreed with me that enforcement focus is on speed control rather than real crash prevention.

no- I didn't- re-read it- I said that only really applies to those conditions.

I disagree because that view is too narrow and too shortsighted.  Your job should be to improve the public safety, not just traffic but overall, within the confines of protecting civil liberties.  That?s a tall order and a lot of your brethren are not equipped to even understand that, much less do it.

Right because most of the guys on my department aren't college educated and many of them aren't continuing their education at some of this states top colleges outside LE.     All cops are undereducated morons who just drive around looking for the easiest way out of work and couldn't possibly understand anything - which is why I don't personally know one single police officer who has ever been sued. <--That part is true.  Cops are all just stupid.     And by the way- I really care if you disapprove of how I do my job.

The other posters have already pounced on you for your attitude so I need not pile on further

I really don't care if anyone likes my attitude or not- I never have and I never will I'm not hired to be popular I'm hired to do a job.  And someone must like my attitude because I was made a sergeant and a few weeks after that I was put in co-charge of training and made Staff Sergeant.  So you know- I really don't care and it seems I'm not asked to by my boss or his boss or his boss or her boss or his boss or his boss.

It?s treating me very well.  The ?field? that you reference is too vague.  What I was writing about was the scientific application of public policy to a problem in order to actually mitigate the problem rather than to merely sustain institutions dependent upon the status quo.

Yeah because- you know- all 12 year olds are really concerned enought to make sure that speed limits get dropped. 

You are a troll of the highest order and for that one thing I salute you.   

[the nameless one]

He is not a troll simply because he agrees with the law.

Quothe Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.


"the nameless one" comes to a car enthusiast forum and preaches speedlimits. He uses the same arguments time and again, while dismissing anybody who disagrees as a speed-crazy lunatic that has no concern for anyone's safety. He is a troll.

I use the "same arguments  time and again" because I belive in what I am saying.
So "car enthusiasts" now equates with "illegal speeder advocate" Do all "car enthusiasts" think they shouldn't have to drive at a reasonable speed limit while not endangering other people sharing the road? I think not. Saying so does not make one a troll.

[the nameless one]

My SC license was suspended (via a letter in the mail) several months after I had traded it in for my Maine license.
If they don't like it, they can kiss my a$$.

I hope that you've fixed that. If your state is anything like mine, even with a Maine license, if you return to SC you can be cited because your priviledge to drive in that state will remain suspended, even if you have an out of state license.

[the nameless one]

the nameless one writes:
Yet, 85 mph is anywhere from 10 mph to 30 mph faster than present limits and that’s the very behavior that enforcement focuses on.  You admit the speeds actually being driven are safe and then turn around and cite somebody for them.  Kind of hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?

Actually, I concentrate my speeding efforts in residential neighborhoods, school zones, etc. So, no, I am not hypocritical.

No, the really sad truth is that the typical officer who writes the report of anything less than a fatality crash does not generally have any knowledge of crush factors, skid distances, adhesion coefficients, crumple zones of particular cars, etc.  They write reports.  Period.  They check off boxes on a standardized form.  Their “investigation” is limited in scope and in depth.
There are a few qualified accident reconstructionists out there and they have some cool new tools with PC programs that help them with the calculations.  Hats off to them.

The average accident doesn't require a reconstructionist to report on.

That’s just chickensh!t.  Then you wonder why the public disrespects you so much.

Just because YOU disrespect someone doesn't mean the general public does. Hate to break it to you, but law enforcement in general has the support of the public on a day-to-day basis.