Speed Traps

[sparkplug]

I live in a speedtrap. It seems to be a small town phenomena. Police here are real ticket happy.

I've know one person here who got a ticket for 39 in a 35. This certainly doesn't help the image of the town. My grandma was recently ticket for 52 in a 35. She said she was slowing down well before she got to sign and I've never known her to go over 50 mph.
But this is the thing that disturbs me most of all. The policeman turned on his flashers before she even got to the 35 mph sign and started going after her.

I can say 100% that this town is a speedtrap and it's reputation as a speedtrap is well known because I tell it to everybody I know.

What do you think about speedtraps? They certainly are not ethical. I try to drive the speed limit to best of my ability. If a policeman writes me a ticket for something I did wrong ok, but if he makes up some trumped up charge, I'd be tempted to go after his badge, legally.

The speed limit is to protect the drivers and the town but violation of the principle of what the law is trying to protect is unethical.

[giant_mtb]

39 in a 35 is ridiculous!  I've never heard of a cop pulling someone over for anything less than or equal to 5 above the posted limit.  Who goes 55?  No one, everybody usually goes about 60.  Nobody cares.


There are speed traps in my area, but they are marked with signs like "Speed enforcement area next so-and-so miles".

[Raza]

They're NOT ethical, not that much of police auto enforcement is.  

It's all fucking garbage.  It's funny and sad that they tell you it's not about the money.

[dazzleman]

I live in a speedtrap. It seems to be a small town phenomena. Police here are real ticket happy.

I've know one person here who got a ticket for 39 in a 35. This certainly doesn't help the image of the town. My grandma was recently ticket for 52 in a 35. She said she was slowing down well before she got to sign and I've never known her to go over 50 mph.
But this is the thing that disturbs me most of all. The policeman turned on his flashers before she even got to the 35 mph sign and started going after her.

I can say 100% that this town is a speedtrap and it's reputation as a speedtrap is well known because I tell it to everybody I know.

What do you think about speedtraps? They certainly are not ethical. I try to drive the speed limit to best of my ability. If a policeman writes me a ticket for something I did wrong ok, but if he makes up some trumped up charge, I'd be tempted to go after his badge, legally.

The speed limit is to protect the drivers and the town but violation of the principle of what the law is trying to protect is unethical.

What part of the country do you live in, sparkplug?

I think it's great that your grandma gets speeding tickets.  I like that, man.  Now you have to outdo her -- you can't let granny show you up in your driving style.  

On a serious note, I think a lot depends on who gets to keep the revenue from the fines the tickets generate.  In my state (Connecticut), the state gets all the traffic fines, so local towns have little financial incentives to set up speedtraps.  They do give out tickets, but usually in response to neighborhood complaints and real safety concerns.  And traffic enforcement is generally not a big priority, at least where I live.

[Tom]

That really sucks.  I can't say my area is to bad with regard to ticketing.  Aren't too many cops and they won't go after you unless you're really asking for it.  The only close call I had was going 48-50 in a 35 going right by a cop hidden behind a bush.  That sounds bad, but this particular road has no business being a 35, and this was at the bottom of a hill.

[Raza]

The only *ticket* I had was going *70* in a 35 going right by a cop hidden behind a *dumpster*. That sounds bad, but this particular road has no business being a 35, and this was *while making a pass, since the road has four lanes.*

*edited for Raza

[mazda6er]

The only *ticket* I had was going *70* in a 35 going right by a cop hidden behind a *dumpster*. That sounds bad, but this particular road has no business being a 35, and this was *while making a pass, since the road has four lanes.*

*edited for Raza

What is this, like mad libs or something? Ok, I'll play. (shrug)

The only *gay sex* I had was going *-34.3* in a 35 going right by a cop hidden behind a *cheese log*. That sounds bad, but this particular road has no business being a 35, and this was *in my Scooby Doo underwear after 23 shots of Jose Cuervo.*

*edited for Raza

Your turn.

[ciciusss]

They're NOT ethical, not that much of police auto enforcement is.  

It's all fucking garbage.  It's funny and sad that they tell you it's not about the money.

Raza,

I have to disagree with you here about ethics of police officers. As a group, I have found LEOs and Agents to be among the most ethical of all job related fields. LEOs have a great deal of power. To make sure that this power is not abused, departments and agencies do a great deal of screening. This includes bio data tests, psychological evaluations, background investigations, panel interviews and polygraph tests prior to hiring.

The evaluation process continues through the academy and when they are released to a field training officer where their abilities to make proper judgements are continually assessed. There are very few professions that go to these extents to make sure that they are hiring essentially good people who will make the proper decisions when called on. Nor are there many other professions that have the level of scrutiny that Law Enforcement is subjected too. Most of the charges that are brought up against officers by citizens are to an overwhelming degree unsubtantiated. Those departments that have cameras in their police vehicles continually bear this out.

Also, and maybe you have done this, but why don't you go out on a "ride along" program and see what these officers subject themselves too on a daily basis. Many who have done this find that their assumptions are wrong about police officers.

And Dazzleman is right, with most departments, traffic enforcement is a low priority. They do enough to let the motorists know that they are out there and that there is a chance you could get caught violating a traffic law. I would say most officers will not pull someone unless they are exceeding the speed limit by over 15 mph. Exceptions generally included school zones and construction zones.    

[Raza]

Today, while on the way to my car dealership, I was flanked by a sheriff and then a police officer made an illegal left turn dangerously close to me and blew past a yellow-turning-red-as-he-crossed without his lights on, only to stop at the next light, while the sheriff did nothing.  If I had gone 50 on that road, had gotten on the accelerator a bit much, or failed to signal, the sheriff would have pulled me over and ticketed me.  

Where I live, the cops have no real crime to deal with--some vandalism and theft, maybe, but they mostly concentrate on traffic enforcement.

[TurboDan]

I always wanted to do a ride-along.  Is it as simple as just calling the local precinct and asking if any officer is willing?

[Raza]

I always wanted to do a ride-along.  Is it as simple as just calling the local precinct and asking if any officer is willing?

I would like to do that too...maybe something will finally shut me up.

[dazzleman]

I always wanted to do a ride-along.  Is it as simple as just calling the local precinct and asking if any officer is willing?

I did two ride-alongs.  It was really cool.  The rules depend on the department.  My local PD will do it for town residents who pass a background check if they sign a waiver.

[Catman]

I've found that the level of traffic enforcement performed has to do with a few different factors.  First, is resident complaints.  No one likes speeders on their street.  Second, is the amount of accidents in a given area.  Third, is the expectations of government.  This can be local elected officials up to federal agencies.  The third example is the most broad and their reasons can be totally opposite of each other.  A local selectman can pressure the police department to perform more enforcement in an attempt to quiet complaints.  A Mayor or Town Manager may pressure a chief to write more violations to bring in revenue.  The state may provide grant money to provide added enforcement around the holidays (we're doing that now).

In my department, enforcement is mainly driven by the continuous demand of residents to slow traffic down and curb aggressive driving.  Our safety officer listens to his voice mails every day and then adds streets to his dry erase board for added enforcement.  They call, then they see us there and they're happy.  You request a service and you get it, a simple process.  

There is also another element when it comes to supervisors and their expectations.  For police officers, we have priorities such as calls for service, medical calls and accidents.  Just like someone in an office has certain tasks they perform regularly.  When the regular work is done the boss can hand you busy work (everyone knows what that is).  However, even if added enforcement is not directed one would expect that an officer working 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day would come across a few violations in which at least a warning would be issued.  If a patrolman works a whole month and brings in one citation is that realistic?  There is an expectation that officers will enforce motor vehicle law, not to ignore violations.  All that aside, the average patrolman in my department writes about 8-12 citations a month, hardly excessive.

[giant_mtb]

The only *ticket* I had was going *70* in a 35 going right by a cop hidden behind a *dumpster*. That sounds bad, but this particular road has no business being a 35, and this was *while making a pass, since the road has four lanes.*

*edited for Raza

What is this, like mad libs or something? Ok, I'll play. (shrug)

The only *gay sex* I had was going *-34.3* in a 35 going right by a cop hidden behind a *cheese log*. That sounds bad, but this particular road has no business being a 35, and this was *in my Scooby Doo underwear after 23 shots of Jose Cuervo.*

*edited for Raza

Your turn.

 

[sparkplug]

I think it's great that your grandma gets speeding tickets.  I like that, man.  Now you have to outdo her -- you can't let granny show you up in your driving style.  

On a serious note, I think a lot depends on who gets to keep the revenue from the fines the tickets generate.  In my state (Connecticut), the state gets all the traffic fines, so local towns have little financial incentives to set up speedtraps.  They do give out tickets, but usually in response to neighborhood complaints and real safety concerns.  And traffic enforcement is generally not a big priority, at least where I live.

It's on the Flappir website. It's a little pee stain in the middle of nowhere that can really cost you a pretty penny.

What bothered me more than anything else is that he pulled over my grandma and gave her a ticket for something that I'm 100% sure she wasn't doing. He turned on his lights before she even reached the sign. How do you defend yourself from such unethical behavior. I'd go after his badge and make him miserable for life.  

[TurboDan]

Go after his badge how?  In most courtrooms, the officers, the prosecutor, and the judge all go out to lunch together after the session ends.  You think any of them are going to care - after all, "that's what they all say."

[ciciusss]

I always wanted to do a ride-along.  Is it as simple as just calling the local precinct and asking if any officer is willing?

Dan,

I can only speak for my old department and a few others that have the program. Typically you just call a couple days ahead and tell them what day and the time you want to ride. They will do a NCIC/ NLETS check to make sure you do not have any wants or warrants or have a criminal history as a felon. My old department had you show up at the police station and sign a waiver. After that, an officer would pick you up. I know some officers did not particularly care for the program because, they had a civilian riding along with the additional liability of worrying about their protection.

I did not mind and usually had more ride alongs assigned to me than anyone else in our squad. I felt it was an effective way to show what a police officer encountered day in and day out. I also was assigned to an area that was a high crime district and had a higher liklihood of arrests for drugs, domestic violence, armed robberies, etc and I figured before you make a comment about my fellow officers or me why don't you see what we have to face on a day to day basis. There were a couple of civilians who after their time was done said their entire perception had changed and not only understood how we reacted the way we did but, how for the most part how professional we stayed in very heated moments. A few admitted they were scared at times.

[Catman]

Go after his badge how?  In most courtrooms, the officers, the prosecutor, and the judge all go out to lunch together after the session ends.  You think any of them are going to care - after all, "that's what they all say."

Can't say I've been out to lunch with any court officials.  

[Raza]

Go after his badge how?  In most courtrooms, the officers, the prosecutor, and the judge all go out to lunch together after the session ends.  You think any of them are going to care - after all, "that's what they all say."

Can't say I've been out to lunch with any court officials.

Really?  They take me to dinner all the time.  They probably feel bad since they make so much money off me every year.

 

[TurboDan]

Can't say I've been out to lunch with any court officials.

Hehe.  Just a little exgerration to state how the Judge will normally always take the officer's word.  

The one time I went to traffic court in NJ, everyone did actually seem pretty buddy-buddy, though.  They probably all did go to the same place for lunch for the simple fact that there was only one place to eat in the whole town.    

[dazzleman]

Can't say I've been out to lunch with any court officials.

Hehe.  Just a little exgerration to state how the Judge will normally always take the officer's word.  

The one time I went to traffic court in NJ, everyone did actually seem pretty buddy-buddy, though.  They probably all did go to the same place for lunch for the simple fact that there was only one place to eat in the whole town.  

Dan, speaking of buddy-buddy, have you ever noticed how buddy-buddy driving school instructors are with the people who give the road test in New York State.  They seem them all the time, and they appear so friendly, that I have to wonder if it leads to favoritism on the test.  I am sure that it does.

A guy I know had received 4 speeding tickets within a short period of time.  Had he been convicted on all of them, he would have faced a revocation of his license for 6 months, I like.

He got a lawyer who was friends with the judge.  They ended up having a friendly meeting in the judge's chambers (not open court) where the judge joked about locking him up.  The end result -- he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge on one ticket and paid a small fine, and the rest were thrown out.

The real buddy-buddy in the court system is among the lawyers and judges I suspect, not so much the cops.

[TurboDan]

Yes, I'd agree 100%.  Local judges are usually lawyers from the municipality they serve that are taking a break from their firm to serve as a judge.   It's not surprising to assume they would know the other lawyers in town, as they're probably friends.  

[mazda6er]

Go after his badge how?  In most courtrooms, the officers, the prosecutor, and the judge all go out to lunch together after the session ends.  You think any of them are going to care - after all, "that's what they all say."

Can't say I've been out to lunch with any court officials.

I'm sure you have, you just don't remember it. The bailiff may've slipped a little something in your drink.      

[hounddog]

Would someone please tell me what a speed trap is?  And, would someone please tell me how, if you know it's a speed trap, do you get caught speeding?  Is you intelligence quotient so low that if a town has a reputation that you must tempt fate by doing, as one poster said, 70 in a 30.  Or as another poster said -34.3.  I just have to laugh at people when they call a place a speed trap, when the speed is posted (by law) or it is a PRIMA FACIA speed zone, and then go and get caught- you guessed it, SPEEDING.  

[sparkplug]

Towns with crooked or ignorant administrators are generally going downhill because nobody wants to do business with those people. So they use the law where they can enforce their "laws" with relative impunity. On occasion the state may step in to stop these traps but it happens.

The police are told what to do and because they have to earn a living and feed their families, they do it. Some policemen have attitudes and get a power trip out of writing tickets but those are few and far between.

My Grandma never drives over 50 mph but the officer wrote her up for going over 50mph in a 35mph zone. The thing is it absolutely criminal to charge an old lady for speeding when she wasn't. She couldn't afford that ticket.

The problem with this is the badge is designed by a community to enforce the law, not to abuse the motorist with unnecessary speeding tickets. That is why people won't stop in the town to buy anything.

I'm sure Catman can tell stories of bad policemen but one thing is certain. They don't stay with a police department with good officers very long because they aren't welcomed or tolerated there.  

[dazzleman]

Something can only be considered a speed trap if it's deliberately deceptive.

The worst example I heard of this is when there is a speed limit outside town of, say 50 mph.  As you get into town, it gets lowered to, say 35 mph.  Some podunk towns sit a cop right behind the lowered speed limit sign, and ticket cars for doing 50 mph even though they haven't had a good faith legitimate chance to slow down.

Other than that, I agree that if you're really speeding, whatever methods the police use to catch you are legitimate.  Whether the speed enforcement philosophy is always good public policy is another issue; I believe in many cases that it's not.  Still, if the speed limit is marked and you choose to exceed it, you really can't complain if you get nailed.  You made an informed choice to break the law and risk the consequences, so you can't complain if it actually happens.  And I say this as a guy who gets tickets; I'm not one of these goody-two people who's never done anything illegal behind the wheel.

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to blame the police for ticketing you if you actually committed the offense.  They guy's only doing his job.  Now, if he's a crooked cop who lies, that's a different story, but it's only a small percentage of tickets that are given out in this manner, at least in my experience.

[hounddog]

Something can only be considered a speed trap if it's deliberately deceptive.

The worst example I heard of this is when there is a speed limit outside town of, say 50 mph.  As you get into town, it gets lowered to, say 35 mph.  Some podunk towns sit a cop right behind the lowered speed limit sign, and ticket cars for doing 50 mph even though they haven't had a good faith legitimate chance to slow down.

Other than that, I agree that if you're really speeding, whatever methods the police use to catch you are legitimate.  Whether the speed enforcement philosophy is always good public policy is another issue; I believe in many cases that it's not.  Still, if the speed limit is marked and you choose to exceed it, you really can't complain if you get nailed.  You made an informed choice to break the law and risk the consequences, so you can't complain if it actually happens.  And I say this as a guy who gets tickets; I'm not one of these goody-two people who's never done anything illegal behind the wheel.

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to blame the police for ticketing you if you actually committed the offense.  They guy's only doing his job.  Now, if he's a crooked cop who lies, that's a different story, but it's only a small percentage of tickets that are given out in this manner, at least in my experience.

All towns, at least in Michigan, have speed reductions at the city/village/township limits and are posted as required by law.  Those with residential areas at the limits are Prima Facia limited at 25mph.  Those with residential and commercial areas at the limit are Prima Facia 35mph.  Both are that way unless otherwise posted.  

It is generally accepted in the courts that if a person signs and accepts the license, he agrees to abide by the law, and also agrees to no defense of ignorance of law.  In most states it is also part of the speed laws that the speed zone starts AT the speed zone signage.  So, if you are coming into a town on a road that is 50 and the city limit signs say it is 35 then that is where the zone starts.  You are not allowed a "time to slow down" once you reach that sign.  Most changes of speed are required to be posted in advance warning by almost every state transportation devision.   So, I just don't see how anyone can call a speed zone that is "properly marked" (of course there is always the chance it isn't properly marked) a speed trap.  Again, if you know it's a town that writes many tickets- slow down.  my .02

[Catman]

Something can only be considered a speed trap if it's deliberately deceptive.

The worst example I heard of this is when there is a speed limit outside town of, say 50 mph.? As you get into town, it gets lowered to, say 35 mph.? Some podunk towns sit a cop right behind the lowered speed limit sign, and ticket cars for doing 50 mph even though they haven't had a good faith legitimate chance to slow down.

Other than that, I agree that if you're really speeding, whatever methods the police use to catch you are legitimate.? Whether the speed enforcement philosophy is always good public policy is another issue; I believe in many cases that it's not.? Still, if the speed limit is marked and you choose to exceed it, you really can't complain if you get nailed.? You made an informed choice to break the law and risk the consequences, so you can't complain if it actually happens.? And I say this as a guy who gets tickets; I'm not one of these goody-two people who's never done anything illegal behind the wheel.

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to blame the police for ticketing you if you actually committed the offense.? They guy's only doing his job.? Now, if he's a crooked cop who lies, that's a different story, but it's only a small percentage of tickets that are given out in this manner, at least in my experience.

All towns, at least in Michigan, have speed reductions at the city/village/township limits and are posted as required by law.  Those with residential areas at the limits are Prima Facia limited at 25mph.  Those with residential and commercial areas at the limit are Prima Facia 35mph.  Both are that way unless otherwise posted.  

It is generally accepted in the courts that if a person signs and accepts the license, he agrees to abide by the law, and also agrees to no defense of ignorance of law.  In most states it is also part of the speed laws that the speed zone starts AT the speed zone signage.  So, if you are coming into a town on a road that is 50 and the city limit signs say it is 35 then that is where the zone starts.  You are not allowed a "time to slow down" once you reach that sign.  Most changes of speed are required to be posted in advance warning by almost every state transportation devision.   So, I just don't see how anyone can call a speed zone that is "properly marked" (of course there is always the chance it isn't properly marked) a speed trap.  Again, if you know it's a town that writes many tickets- slow down.  my .02

Good points hounddog.  

[dazzleman]

Something can only be considered a speed trap if it's deliberately deceptive.

The worst example I heard of this is when there is a speed limit outside town of, say 50 mph.? As you get into town, it gets lowered to, say 35 mph.? Some podunk towns sit a cop right behind the lowered speed limit sign, and ticket cars for doing 50 mph even though they haven't had a good faith legitimate chance to slow down.

Other than that, I agree that if you're really speeding, whatever methods the police use to catch you are legitimate.? Whether the speed enforcement philosophy is always good public policy is another issue; I believe in many cases that it's not.? Still, if the speed limit is marked and you choose to exceed it, you really can't complain if you get nailed.? You made an informed choice to break the law and risk the consequences, so you can't complain if it actually happens.? And I say this as a guy who gets tickets; I'm not one of these goody-two people who's never done anything illegal behind the wheel.

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to blame the police for ticketing you if you actually committed the offense.? They guy's only doing his job.? Now, if he's a crooked cop who lies, that's a different story, but it's only a small percentage of tickets that are given out in this manner, at least in my experience.

All towns, at least in Michigan, have speed reductions at the city/village/township limits and are posted as required by law.  Those with residential areas at the limits are Prima Facia limited at 25mph.  Those with residential and commercial areas at the limit are Prima Facia 35mph.  Both are that way unless otherwise posted.  

It is generally accepted in the courts that if a person signs and accepts the license, he agrees to abide by the law, and also agrees to no defense of ignorance of law.  In most states it is also part of the speed laws that the speed zone starts AT the speed zone signage.  So, if you are coming into a town on a road that is 50 and the city limit signs say it is 35 then that is where the zone starts.  You are not allowed a "time to slow down" once you reach that sign.  Most changes of speed are required to be posted in advance warning by almost every state transportation devision.   So, I just don't see how anyone can call a speed zone that is "properly marked" (of course there is always the chance it isn't properly marked) a speed trap.  Again, if you know it's a town that writes many tickets- slow down.  my .02

If there's a previous warning sign of a lowered speed limit, then I think it's generally legitimate if a town wants to sit an LEO right behind the sign where the speed limit officially changes.  But if it's the first the motorist is seeing of a lower speed limit, then it's dirty pool to ticket somebody when they haven't even had a chance to bring themselves into compliance.

I generally think that all's fair in enforcement, as long as the motorist is actually speeding.  I think that attempts to nail motorists at any cost, including those who are making a good faith effort to stay within the law or close to it, are counterproductive.  They breed disrespect for the law and hostility toward the police.

Now of course, there are some people who blatantly violate the law, then complain and blame the police when they are caught.  I have no tolerance for this.  But people who aren't really doing anything dangerous shouldn't be targeted for enforcement regularly becuase it undermines support and respect for the law.

[hounddog]

Something can only be considered a speed trap if it's deliberately deceptive.

The worst example I heard of this is when there is a speed limit outside town of, say 50 mph.? As you get into town, it gets lowered to, say 35 mph.? Some podunk towns sit a cop right behind the lowered speed limit sign, and ticket cars for doing 50 mph even though they haven't had a good faith legitimate chance to slow down.

Other than that, I agree that if you're really speeding, whatever methods the police use to catch you are legitimate.? Whether the speed enforcement philosophy is always good public policy is another issue; I believe in many cases that it's not.? Still, if the speed limit is marked and you choose to exceed it, you really can't complain if you get nailed.? You made an informed choice to break the law and risk the consequences, so you can't complain if it actually happens.? And I say this as a guy who gets tickets; I'm not one of these goody-two people who's never done anything illegal behind the wheel.

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to blame the police for ticketing you if you actually committed the offense.? They guy's only doing his job.? Now, if he's a crooked cop who lies, that's a different story, but it's only a small percentage of tickets that are given out in this manner, at least in my experience.

All towns, at least in Michigan, have speed reductions at the city/village/township limits and are posted as required by law.  Those with residential areas at the limits are Prima Facia limited at 25mph.  Those with residential and commercial areas at the limit are Prima Facia 35mph.  Both are that way unless otherwise posted.  

It is generally accepted in the courts that if a person signs and accepts the license, he agrees to abide by the law, and also agrees to no defense of ignorance of law.  In most states it is also part of the speed laws that the speed zone starts AT the speed zone signage.  So, if you are coming into a town on a road that is 50 and the city limit signs say it is 35 then that is where the zone starts.  You are not allowed a "time to slow down" once you reach that sign.  Most changes of speed are required to be posted in advance warning by almost every state transportation devision.   So, I just don't see how anyone can call a speed zone that is "properly marked" (of course there is always the chance it isn't properly marked) a speed trap.  Again, if you know it's a town that writes many tickets- slow down.  my .02

If there's a previous warning sign of a lowered speed limit, then I think it's generally legitimate if a town wants to sit an LEO right behind the sign where the speed limit officially changes.  But if it's the first the motorist is seeing of a lower speed limit, then it's dirty pool to ticket somebody when they haven't even had a chance to bring themselves into compliance.

I generally think that all's fair in enforcement, as long as the motorist is actually speeding.  I think that attempts to nail motorists at any cost, including those who are making a good faith effort to stay within the law or close to it, are counterproductive.  They breed disrespect for the law and hostility toward the police.

Now of course, there are some people who blatantly violate the law, then complain and blame the police when they are caught.  I have no tolerance for this.  But people who aren't really doing anything dangerous shouldn't be targeted for enforcement regularly becuase it undermines support and respect for the law.

I can't disagree on that, poor or over inforcement will hurt a department.  However, in order to get a driver license in almost every state one must pass an eye exam where they must be able to display a specific level of vision.  Here I think it is correctable to 20/200 or 200/20 (however they word that).  This means that you have to be able to see at a certain distance.  If you can pass that exam then you can see off in the distance to at least a specific distance.  If that is the case, and you are doing what the law requires, re paying attention as you drive, then you should in theory be able to see the speed signs in front of you.  In my opinion this defense is right up there with "I was in a hurry to get to work."  

I'm not trying to bait you or anyone else, I just don't agree with this line of argument.  I must repeatedly fall back on my - if you know that town writes tickets slow down.  
As for the people who faithfully try to abide by the law, you can almost every time "see" these people when you talk to them.  There are signals to look for to determine when a person is telling the truth, or at least being truthful (yes there is a difference).  A rookie or "young cop"  will likely have a harder time with this and will likely write more tickets.  A veteran, one that has 7 or more years experience, has a much easier time sorting out the crap from the cream. <_<