Whoops... :(

[James Young]

the nameless one writes:

Tinfoils on too tight James; you see a "speedtrap" behind every billboard and roadside tree.

What you fail, refuse or cannot see is that speedtraps do not require a conspiracy for their existence when mere greed or economic desperation will suffice.? You also fail to see that several states have already perceived speedtraps to be a problem and have revoked enforcement privileges due to abuse.? Perhaps the state sees a problem that you don?t.

A jurisdictions intent to pursue speeding vigerously does not mean they have sucumbed to the Dark Side, James. Perhaps they truly view speed as a pressing problem.

They?re pursuing money, not speeding.? What that means is that the decision was made with the intent to generate revenue for that town or village.? The police forces in many of these towns are by choice rather than by statute; that is, they were created with the expressed intent to generate revenue since they have no other function.? The county sheriff ? a statutory agency ? is the enforcer of criminal and civil law.? Somebody stole your boat?? Call the Adair county sheriff because Big Cabin PD won?t help you (real case).

The vigor with which they pursue speeding is driven more by the need for cash than any true public safety interest.? In the 40+ years of these traps (with more villages joining them every year), they have not affected the three key safety measures.

Speeding is hardly a pressing problem, particularly when the design speed is probably 30 mph above the posted limit,¹ but it is a great opportunity to create a little cash.? I use Stringtown because they are notorious, arrogant and criminal in their pursuit of speeding fines.? Think Appalachia and you?ll have a pretty good idea of the economic circumstances of Stringtown.? The population is 401 with a per capita income of $9,612 a year.? Unemployment is estimated at 30%.? There is one convenience store/caf?/service station but no other business.? There is now a Choctaw casino just north of town.?

They are desperate for money and jobs and speeding fines are just fine with them.? They don?t care that traveling at 65 mph is hardly dangerous, only that it means $120.?

Maybe these are jurisdictions where they are doing a lot of interdiction stops where the speed isn't their primary concern but the pretext for the stop, but the agency has no written warning alternative to the speed cite so thats what gets issued. There are a multitude of reasons beyond what you offer that could reasonably explain things.

The moon could be made of green cheese and George W. Bush could really be genius in a moron?s suit, too, but it ain?t likely.?

I don't automatically see a problem with a budget being 80 % fine based.? No tax base and a lot of tickets means the per centage will be skewed.

Except that the State of Oklahoma does see a problem with such skewness because it degrades the legitimacy of that jurisdiction.? 80% fine revenue is, by definition, criminal.?

Once again, was the offense committed or not? Now, if you are going to suggest that the tickets and their cited violations were fabricated, thats an issue.

Stories abound about fabricated cites, some of them likely true.? The real point is that cites are not needed to control an epidemic of speeding that is killing people right and left because they just ain?t happening.? Even if that were the case, OHP would move in to cover that area.? What you can?t seem to grasp is that it doesn?t matter if the ?offense? was committed or not because the offense is not the key issue here because it merely serves as the vehicle to make some money.? What was reasonable and legal one mile north suddenly becomes the target of an overzealous, untrained HS dropout with a badge and radar.?

No, it doesn't make the officer a criminal.

But it does make him a prostitute.

No, I can think of plenty of drivers who avoid crashes, injuries and fatalities buit are in fact horrendous drivers.

Then you need to lay out your exact definition of ?better driver? and ?horrendous driver? along with your reasoning and some evidence to support it.

And exactly WHAT non-profit gets designated to receive this cash flow? How do you handle the bitching from the other non-profits who would certainly clamour to get a slice of the pie?

Very interesting that you would deny that speedtraps exist for economic gain and then use the analogy of ?a slice of the pie.?? Note that I said ?non-profit public corporation,? that is, a corporation at the state level to which all fines, fees, and costs are paid.? This money is then invested to create income used to fund scholarships to state universities.? The driver still has to pay (your favorite); the towns and villages get no revenue so they have no incentive to cite for money; since the ultimate recipients (students) are unknown, there can be no cite-and-fine in anticipation of future benefit.? Any jurisdiction that perceives a need to patrol traffic for legitimate public safety can certainly do so and to pay for that need out of tax revenues raises its legitimacy.? Note that this is not a charity and does not compete for revenue.? The Red Cross and Salvation Army have no claim on this money.

¹? The highway (US 69) is a four-lane, divided semi-limited-access with sightlines varying between ? mile to nearly a mile.? The Village had changed the limit to 40 mph (illegally) but the State of Oklahoma changed it back to 60 mph.? There are no lighted signals, no stop signs, and only three roads that connect to the highway, no roadside attractions (the actual village is off the highway to the East), and no businesses or residences of any note.? ?The key 95th percentile is probably about 67 mph and, absent enforcement, would probably be 75-77 mph as it is on that same highway outside the village.?

[Raza]

I'll buy that, ON AVERAGE, stopping distances increase 4-fold in relation to speed. In emergency situations they do not, but in the course of normal driving, no one is stomping on their brakes at every opportunity. To maintain a pleasant ride, people brake long and soft comming off the interstate.

No.  I absolutely slam on the brakes every time I come to a stop. 

[the nameless one]

What you fail, refuse or cannot see is that speedtraps do not require a conspiracy for their existence when mere greed or economic desperation will suffice.? You also fail to see that several states have already perceived speedtraps to be a problem and have revoked enforcement privileges due to abuse.? Perhaps the state sees a problem that you don?t.

Ora  few disgruntled legislators who found themselves ticketed. Thats what I've heard was the case in at least one state. Or maybe they were mad these cities were not sending their fine money to the state coffers?

They?re pursuing money, not speeding.? What that means is that the decision was made with the intent to generate revenue for that town or village.? The police forces in many of these towns are by choice rather than by statute; that is, they were created with the expressed intent to generate revenue since they have no other function.? The county sheriff ? a statutory agency ? is the enforcer of criminal and civil law.? Somebody stole your boat?? Call the Adair county sheriff because Big Cabin PD won?t help you (real case).

So says you. Its chicken and egg. Fighting speeding by fines will generate revenue. You say its all about the revenue....citizens want their streets safer, and that requires speeed enforcement. Of course you'll say its all about the money.

Speeding is hardly a pressing problem, particularly when the design speed is probably 30 mph above the posted limit,

Of course you are only talking about interstates there.
No way can you claim that residential streets are safer at 75 than at, say, 45 MPH. Or are you? I've seen you shift back and forth in the past.

but it is a great opportunity to create a little cash.? I use Stringtown because they are notorious, arrogant and criminal in their pursuit of speeding fines.? Think Appalachia and you?ll have a pretty good idea of the economic circumstances of Stringtown.? The population is 401 with a per capita income of $9,612 a year.? Unemployment is estimated at 30%.? There is one convenience store/caf?/service station but no other business.? There is now a Choctaw casino just north of town.?

So speeding should be justifiable because the locale is a poor or economically depressed one, in your mind?

Stories abound about fabricated cites, some of them likely true.? The real point is that cites are not needed to control an epidemic of speeding that is killing people right and left because they just ain?t happening.? Even if that were the case, OHP would move in to cover that area.?

Meaning the state would get the revenue from OSP tickets, of course, right, which is what the state wants and why some of these states as you mentioned are shutting down local operations. The same thing is encountered here in truck enforcement; the state tries to monopolize commercial truck enforcement because  they don't want the locals getting that fine money, even though there aren't enough state guys around to enforce the trucks adequately. Budgeted monery to train locals on truck enforcement goes unspent every year because the state guys don't want to see any of that fine money NOT go to the state.. The reality is that state patrols can't be as many places as they are needed. Thats why half the counties in this state have county road patrols...because relying on state police alone would not work. I am sure the same reality applies there.

What you can?t seem to grasp is that it doesn?t matter if the ?offense? was committed or not because the offense is not the key issue here because it merely serves as the vehicle to make some money.? What was reasonable and legal one mile north suddenly becomes the target of an overzealous, untrained HS dropout with a badge and radar.?

Really, James, what makes you think any agency hires HS dropouts, eh? The fact that something was legal a mile up the road and is illegal now is pointless. If it was a 65 zone a mile up the road and its 40 here, you are required to drive 40. Doesn't matter what it was a mile back up the road.

But it does make him a prostitute.

Nope

Very interesting that you would deny that speedtraps exist for economic gain and then use the analogy of ?a slice of the pie.?? Note that I said ?non-profit public corporation,? that is, a corporation at the state level to which all fines, fees, and costs are paid.? This money is then invested to create income used to fund scholarships to state universities.? The driver still has to pay (your favorite); the towns and villages get no revenue so they have no incentive to cite for money; since the ultimate recipients (students) are unknown, there can be no cite-and-fine in anticipation of future benefit.? Any jurisdiction that perceives a need to patrol traffic for legitimate public safety can certainly do so and to pay for that need out of tax revenues raises its legitimacy.? Note that this is not a charity and does not compete for revenue.? The Red Cross and Salvation Army have no claim on this money.

There is still money. Slice of the pie is a good analogy, so I used it.
Here, the towns already don't get the money, I mentioned that. The courts get their surcharge and thats about it.
Agencies by and large don't cite for the cash, regardless of what you claim, but of course you'll never admit that.

[James Young]

the nameless one writes:

Or a  few disgruntled legislators who found themselves ticketed. Thats what I've heard was the case in at least one state. Or maybe they were mad these cities were not sending their fine money to the state coffers?

Which means that it?s still all about the money.  No doubt some legislators have been nabbed since speeding is ubiquitous, the only real way to get to many state capitols (OKC and Austin in particular) from many of the rural areas is by car, and speedtraps are as common as mosquitoes. 

Stringtown is noted as one speedtrap whose standard spiel by the cop includes the ?advice? that if the ticket is just paid and not contested that it won?t go on the driver?s record.  Un huh.  The only way for that to happen is if the ticket is not reported to the state as required by state law, which, of course, means that the village is keeping all the money.

So says you. Its chicken and egg. Fighting speeding by fines will generate revenue. You say its all about the revenue....citizens want their streets safer, and that requires speeed enforcement. Of course you'll say its all about the money.

There is no public need to ?fight speeding? because speeding is a trivial matter, having no bearing on the universe of traffic safety.  It does, however, provide economic opportunity for those with the authority to stop and cite motorists.  Keep in mind that most of the speedtraps did not exist until after a few places got rich quickly as an unforeseen consequence of enforcement of the NMSL in 1974.  Now, they all want to jump on the bandwagon.  You do the calculus as to what came first.

It is not just me saying that speed control is all about the money;  it is also the plethora of speedtraps as well as more and more larger, legitimate jurisdictions who open tout speed enforcement for the money.  Tulsa City Counselor John Eagleton (Jr.) wants to add 159 (or 189 or 213, all his numbers) cops to the Tulsa PD, to ?be paid for directly by the increase in traffic fines.?  It is also the various estimates of the size of the industry:  $100+ billion a year.  And it is the explosion of photo-radar sold with the explicit promise of $X in ?profit.?  Their words, not mine. 

?Speeding is hardly a pressing problem, particularly when the design speed is probably 30 mph above the posted limit,?  -- JY

Of course you are only talking about interstates there.

Not necessarily.  I write about abuse without regard to where it happens.  Design speeds of city streets certainly don?t match interstate-grade roadways but still exceed the posted limits by significant margins.

No way can you claim that residential streets are safer at 75 than at, say, 45 MPH. Or are you? I've seen you shift back and forth in the past.

Nobody is claiming that 75 is safer than 45 on ?residential streets? except you in your strawman argument.  But 75 on residential streets is not what gets enforced.  No, what gets enforced is the 7-10 mph over on arterials or secondary streets where the limit is set at the 50th percentile and where there is a convenient hiding spot. 

So speeding should be justifiable because the locale is a poor or economically depressed one, in your mind?

No, speed enforcement should not be justified just because the locale is economically depressed.  It is not OK to prey on motorists just because the village needs the money, yet that is the raison d?etre for enforcement in these speedtrap villages.  In my mind -- in fact for most rational people who actually think about these things -- speeding need be neither justified nor condemned but merely ignored or defined out of existence.  You do realize that ?speeding? is the result of a definition and not some intrinsic crime against humanity?

Meaning the state would get the revenue from OSP tickets, of course, right, which is what the state wants and why some of these states as you mentioned are shutting down local operations.

No, it doesn?t mean that at all.  Very little of the fines go to the state, even if issued by OHP, because they stay in the local court.

Oklahoma has taken note of the speedtraps because they are interfering with the state?s efforts at economic development.  You can?t recruit new industry into the state if you turn right around and slam their employees, customers and officers with speeding fines for chickensh!t ?violations.?

Really, James, what makes you think any agency hires HS dropouts, eh?

Oh, the minor fact that they have so disclosed it during the state and FBI investigations of their practices.

The fact that something was legal a mile up the road and is illegal now is pointless. If it was a 65 zone a mile up the road and its 40 here, you are required to drive 40. Doesn't matter what it was a mile back up the road.

Sure it does.  Drivers should be able to rely on the consistency of conditions.  The conditions have not changed, only the speed limit and that only because the village ?limits? have been extended into rural areas for several miles.  If 70 was ?safe? and reasonable then, why is 60 dangerous and illegal now?

"But it does make him a prostitute."  -- JY

Nope

Let?s see.   HS dropout with minimal sills and no chance for a job opts to become a village cop whose sole function is to cite speeders who are causing harm to nobody and overcomes his integrity to help perpetrate a scam for money.  Yep, sounds like he?s a whore to me.

[the nameless one]

the nameless one writes:

There is no public need to ?fight speeding? because speeding is a trivial matter, having no bearing on the universe of traffic safety.?

So says you. The public who complains about speeders disagrees with you. Look James, I view you the same as I view the pro-gun people who complain about gun laws on their boards, druggies who complain about drug laws on THEIR boards, etc. You all pitch a bitch about laws concerning something that is near and dear to your heart. The reality is that most of society does not agree with you. In a law abiding society, you have a say in the laws that are written and passed. You can work to defeat them, but once they are passed, as a member of society you are expected to obey them or suffer the consequences of not obeying them. On the issue of speeding, that penalty is monetary. Don't like it? get the law changed. Its a free counttry

Nobody is claiming that 75 is safer than 45 on ?residential streets? except you in your strawman argument.? But 75 on residential streets is not what gets enforced.? No, what gets enforced is the 7-10 mph over on arterials or secondary streets where the limit is set at the 50th percentile and where there is a convenient hiding spot.?

Thats funny, around here its usually 15 over unless its a school zone. Some will even give you as much as 20 over. If you are going 20 over in a residential area, you deserve the ticket.

[James Young]

?There is no public need to ?fight speeding? because speeding is a trivial matter, having no bearing on the universe of traffic safety.?  -- JY

the nameless one writes:

So says you. The public who complains about speeders disagrees with you.

I?m hardly by myself.  At any given time on American roads, about half of the drivers are giving a hearty flick of the finger to speed laws by driving over the posted limits.  And all ? repeat, all ? drivers exceed the posted limit at one time or another.

You have made much ado about the public that complains about speeders but that is apparently unique to Ithaca because it certainly is not prevalent, if it exists at all, in the areas that I?m familiar with.  LAPD does hardly any traffic patrol because they have much larger issues to deal with, yet none of their many PR flacks claim that the public is clamoring for more speed control.  In Tulsa, the number one public complaint is bad roads; number two is the tactics of TPD by hiding to prey upon drivers.  (Sources, KRMG radio and Tulsa World).  In Austin, the number one complaint is congestion.  In San Francisco, the number one complaint is illegal parking.  I cannot think of a single place where speed too fast for conditions is a pressing issue.

You also confuse public complaints with a scientific need for specific enforcement. 

Apparently, you live in a bubble vastly different from the rest of the nation or suffer from selective hearing.

The reality is that most of society does not agree with you. In a law abiding society, you have a say in the laws that are written and passed. You can work to defeat them, but once they are passed, as a member of society you are expected to obey them or suffer the consequences of not obeying them. On the issue of speeding, that penalty is monetary. Don't like it? get the law changed. Its a free country

Have you ever voted on a change in speed limits?  Has speed control or any kind of enforcement ever been an issue in a significant political campaign? 

Aside from the arrogance of the ?don?t-like-it?-get-the-law-changed? mantra, you fail to consider the political climate of traffic control.  You failed to mention the billions of dollars that the anti-destination league puts into the hands of politicians who can help maintain the status quo (or even retrogression), thus putting $100+ billion a year under their control, all of it coming out of the pockets of motorists who are acting reasonably.

With that said, yes, I have helped get the laws changed.  We got NMSL rescinded and saved thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.  We got the ?65? rescinded.  We got limits raised almost across the nation, to 80 mph in west Texas.  Was it the ?bloodbath? predicted by Joan Claybrook and Ricardo Martinez?  Not even close; in fact, things just got safer, proving that all these assertions by the anti-destination league were a load of crap. 

A ?free country??  Please, don?t condescend us like that.  In a free country, one does not need a five-figure campaign contribution as an admission ticket to see a state legislator.  My group and I have been denied access to legislators in Oklahoma, Texas and California because we had made no such contribution.

In order to be effective and to have true legitimacy, laws must be based on sound reasoning and a perceived need with a specific benefit that would be lost absent that particular law.  Speed laws have no such sound scientific reasoning since there is no connection between them and safer highways.  Further, since there is no specific benefit that can be isolated or measured by their application, speed laws enjoy no legitimacy.  Yes, speed laws exist but not for the reason that other laws exist.  Speed laws have been excused on several different bases, none of which endure critical examination.  In short, speed laws cause much more harm than benefit but endure because they support a huge industry that uses political power rather than science to keep it alive.

This affects you personally.  Every time enforcement claims the need for speed control, a claim that the public knows is not supported by science, it loses a little credibility.  When the time comes for a truly legitimate need, say port security, law enforcement claims are degraded by their prior illegitimate claims. 

[James Young]

Sidebar:

Tulsa County has essentially nine different enforcement jurisdictions (seven municipal, county sheriff, OHP) in addition to at least four tribal authorities, which utilize federal courts.  Additionally, there are at least eight different courts in addition to the feds.  The sheriff cites go to county court, OHP to any of the municipals, the county or several JP courts.  Multiply this by the 77 counties in Oklahoma and you literally have thousands of combinations of possible fees, court costs and fines.

Ten state-mandated fees for a 1-10 over speeding cite are $89.90 and the ?fine? is determined by the DA for the county, the traffic DA for the City of Tulsa, the JP in those courts, a judge if it goes to trial, and the DA/court clerk or fee schedule in the smaller jurisdictions.  The ten fees go some to the state, some to dedicated funds within the county.  $20 that goes to the state is for ?DPS patrol vehicle revolving fund;?  in other words, OHP has the incentive of new vehicles to cite as often as possible.

Unincorporated municipalities ? such as the myriad speedtraps ? determine their own schedules and they create their own ?courts? as well.  While they are required to report the cite and pay the $89.90 in fees to the state, it is common practice for these cites to never show up on one?s driving record, which means that they were never reported and the fees never paid.  In harsher terms, they?re stealing money from the state. 

A real ticket issued by the county sheriff to some guy named Matowa (for 1-10 over) was for $161.90.  OHP tickets, per OHP spokesman  and new schedule, (for 1-10 over) are $209.90 and go up to $618.90 for 35 over.

Who gets the money?  The fees are distributed as noted above.  The ?fines? go to the general fund of the jurisdiction (county or municipality) or to the JP general fund, which is then subdivided among that jurisdiction (essentially political spoils) and the county. 

Texas, California, Utah and  Colorado are very similar with layered jurisdictions. 

Note that regardless of whether the jurisdiction is East Dog Tick or Oklahoma City, the fees, the fine, or whether the cite was reported or not, the motorist is still out that money. 

[dazzleman]

James, do you think Paris Hilton deserved to be sentenced to a jail term for repeated incidents of reckless and drunk driving?

[James Young]

James, do you think Paris Hilton deserved to be sentenced to a jail term for repeated incidents of reckless and drunk driving?

No, because it was not necessary.  I think we are confusing the public need for effective protection against wanton acts by dangerous people with baser human jealousy.

While I care little about Paris Hilton and believe that ultimately she should be treated the same as Josephine Sixpack, I can't help but wonder at all the wasted resources spent on this case.  Los Angeles County looks foolish around the world today.  A petty judge gets p!ssy that she got early release and convenes a full court session, the sheriff sends out a patrol car, the PR arms of the sheriff and the courts go into overdrive, and the public can't get enough of it.

All of this was done because PH is a celebrity (or perhaps just notorious); had Josephine Sixpack been early-released, the judge probably would not even have known it.  Instead, the judge hears it on TV and overreacts, triggers a circus and nationwide we get a bunch of women who wish they were Paris gloating that Paris has been brought down to their level.

Are we better off now that PH is back in jail?  Are we safer now that that cell is being used to house PH rather than a father-raper and mother-stabber?  Or does it just not matter?

Perhaps 20 hours of picking up trash along the 405 through Sepulveda Pass would cause PH to reconsider taking charge of her own life-administration issues better than 20+ days in jail.   In any case and quite separate from the system fiasco, Paris needs to get her act together and I suspect the Hilton family will set her straight, warning her away from relying on publicists for important information.  I would wish the same thing for Josephine Sixpack if such intervention would prevent future misbehavior. 

I no longer live in LA but I am there frequently for business interests in Beverly Hills, within a stones throw of PH.  I am in much greater danger of being beaten up by an out of control LA cop than being run down by Paris. 

If you read C&D and/or CarSpin fora with any regularity, you would know that I find no particular peril in speeding drivers and that I find the dilution of enforcement resources to chase down the casual drinker to be counterproductive.   

This case is no longer about equity under law or even about Paris Hilton but has morphed into a d!ck-waving contest between judge Sauer (sp?) and sheriff Baca, demeaning and degrading the law. 

[dazzleman]

I think Paris is probably quite a bit more than a casual drinker.  And if her family were going to straighten her out, they probably would have already done so.  Instead, they spent big money on lawyers so they could effectively enable her.  I wouldn't count on much from those trashy and delusional people.

In any case, you're very consistent in your approach to things, no matter what the facts of the case are, or how severe the case is.  I think consistency is good to a point.

And I doubt you have much to fear from 'out of control' LA cops.

[James Young]

I think Paris is probably quite a bit more than a casual drinker. . . . I wouldn't count on much from those trashy and delusional people.

Paris? big problem is narcissism not alcohol.? This case, however, is no longer about Paris because she is not the force driving the foolishness that pervades LA.? BTW, I have no connection to the family except that I did meet her great-grandfather Conrad (Sr) when I worked for Hilton.? He is probably spinning in his grave.

And I doubt you have much to fear from 'out of control' LA cops.

Probably not since I?m an old white guy in a Bimmer.? Minorities beware, however.

Sidebar:  my advice to her would have been to STFU, drop all the appeals and go straight to jail (the first time, before the release) because it would have been to her ultimate benefit to show that she really cannot be intimidated by the legal system and elevated her in the eyes of her audience.  Too late now.

I am also concerned that something may happen during her jail time and we'll have endless lawsuits and appearances from Nancy Grace and Greta Van Sustern.  Jesus!  I think I'd rather stab myself in the face with a soldering iron than endure all that.

[dazzleman]

Paris? big problem is narcissism not alcohol.? This case, however, is no longer about Paris because she is not the force driving the foolishness that pervades LA.? BTW, I have no connection to the family except that I did meet her great-grandfather Conrad (Sr) when I worked for Hilton.? He is probably spinning in his grave.

Probably not since I?m an old white guy in a Bimmer.? Minorities beware, however.

I don't care about her narcissism per se, except to the extent that it makes her think nothing of driving recklessly with a suspended license, and thereby endangering others.

I'm glad to see locked up because I hate 'celebrity justice.'  Now if we could just lock up OJ and Robert Blake, LA might lose a little of its reputation for empty-headed insanity.

[hounddog]

I never understood why there isn't some kind of regulation on lights @ the rear of the car.

Separate turn signals, separate lights that come on when you brake, and a regular set of taillights that are always on when the headlights are on.? Also all cars should have side markers, separate from the headlamp/parkinglight assembly up front.? (Usually behind the front wheel well on most cars that do have them)

There is, every brake light must be manufactured and maintained within a very tight tint spectrum.  They all have to be almost exactly the same red.  Ever look down the road and notice that all the taillights are the same color?

[hounddog]

No, because it was not necessary.? I think we are confusing the public need for effective protection against wanton acts by dangerous people with baser human jealousy.

While I care little about Paris Hilton and believe that ultimately she should be treated the same as Josephine Sixpack, I can't help but wonder at all the wasted resources spent on this case.? Los Angeles County looks foolish around the world today.? A petty judge gets p!ssy that she got early release and convenes a full court session, the sheriff sends out a patrol car, the PR arms of the sheriff and the courts go into overdrive, and the public can't get enough of it.

All of this was done because PH is a celebrity (or perhaps just notorious); had Josephine Sixpack been early-released, the judge probably would not even have known it.? Instead, the judge hears it on TV and overreacts, triggers a circus and nationwide we get a bunch of women who wish they were Paris gloating that Paris has been brought down to their level.

Are we better off now that PH is back in jail?? Are we safer now that that cell is being used to house PH rather than a father-raper and mother-stabber?? Or does it just not matter?

Perhaps 20 hours of picking up trash along the 405 through Sepulveda Pass would cause PH to reconsider taking charge of her own life-administration issues better than 20+ days in jail.? ?In any case and quite separate from the system fiasco, Paris needs to get her act together and I suspect the Hilton family will set her straight, warning her away from relying on publicists for important information.? I would wish the same thing for Josephine Sixpack if such intervention would prevent future misbehavior.?

I no longer live in LA but I am there frequently for business interests in Beverly Hills, within a stones throw of PH.? I am in much greater danger of being beaten up by an out of control LA cop than being run down by Paris.?

If you read C&D and/or CarSpin fora with any regularity, you would know that I find no particular peril in speeding drivers and that I find the dilution of enforcement resources to chase down the casual drinker to be counterproductive.? ?

This case is no longer about equity under law or even about Paris Hilton but has morphed into a d!ck-waving contest between judge Sauer (sp?) and sheriff Baca, demeaning and degrading the law.?

Oh boy. 

[hounddog]

Tinfoils on too tight James; you see a "speedtrap" behind every billboard and roadside tree.

That is because he does not know what a speedtrap really is.  He believes that a speedtrap is any place which issues tickets.

[Champ]

There is, every brake light must be manufactured and maintained within a very tight tint spectrum.  They all have to be almost exactly the same red.  Ever look down the road and notice that all the taillights are the same color?

I meant the entirety of the lights on the back.  That's sweet that the brake lights are all the same color, but it sucks that they function as a turn signal as well.  Give me a yellow blinker and a different set of brake lights - instead of just the two lights on the back getting brighter than normal and/or blinking.

[SVT_Power]

No.  I absolutely slam on the brakes every time I come to a stop. 

well this post got completely ignored 

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

That is because he does not know what a speedtrap really is.? He believes that a speedtrap is any place which issues tickets.

Implicit in the puerile barb is a fair question:? What is a speedtrap?

Different people and different places define them differently.? The states of Oklahoma and Texas (perhaps others as well) define speedtrap as any jurisdiction that obtains 50% or more of their budget from traffic citations.? Further, until 25 May 2007, these were illegal and about a dozen had had their enforcement privileges restricted by the State of Oklahoma.? A quirky amendment attached to a larger more critical measure at the last-minute sneaked through the legislature, allowing these places to once again prey on motorists.?

The resultant uproar from the people will force a correction of this measure so it will be in force at most two years.? Also, my measure will be introduced into the next legislative sessions in OK, TX and CA and it would end enforcement-for-profit forever.

Back to the definitions.? Even more important than the rather malleable percentage is the intent of the enforcement.? Is the enforcement done for the money or for some perceived public safety need?? Let?s take the case of the dozen or so villages which are state-recognized speedtraps.? Most of them did not even have police departments until after 1974 when they saw their neighbors citing thousands of drivers due to the new much lower limits imposed by NMSL.? They wanted to get in on the act so they formed their own police departments.? Such departments are not statutory departments, i.e., required by state law or constitution, but were formed ?at-choice? for the expressed purpose of making money from citations.?

This intent can easily be extended to any number of larger, legitimate departments who use aggressive enforcement to help balance their budgets, such places as Tulsa, OK; Garland; TX; Washington, DC; Aurora, CO; Phoenix, AZ; and Ventura, CA.? Now these are just places that we know about because they have told us their intent.?

Why speeding cites?? They?re easy because ?speeding? is ubiquitous, easily measured, and since all drivers speed, they figure that the occasional cite is the price of driving.? Precision of measurement has replaced efficacy as the sine qua non as metric by which speed enforcement is measured, at least by those on the insde.? All this enforcement attention has no effect on key safety measures so it cannot be justified (or even rationalized) on scientific grounds.? Therefore, the only reason left is the money that accrues due to these citations.? Do the calculus for yourself.

Also noteworthy is a case of the dog that didn?t bark.? I?m very familiar with two villages (Sunset Valley, TX and Selma, TX), both of which used to be open notorious speedtraps, until economic development and a hugely expanded tax base purged any need to cite for money.? Now, despite a geometric growth in roads, cars and drivers, even freeways with high speeds, they no longer patrol for speed.? It is amazing how Home Depot and Neiman-Marcus somehow cause drivers to be safer.

[Soup DeVille]

There is, every brake light must be manufactured and maintained within a very tight tint spectrum.? They all have to be almost exactly the same red.? Ever look down the road and notice that all the taillights are the same color?

I think what Champ may be getting at here is that turn signals should always be a separate color than brake lights, and that possibly a different shade of red for running lights and brake lights.

Obviously, its easier to distinguish between turn signals and taillights on cars that have amber turn signals, but not all do.

I don't know how effective that would be myself, as people who aren't paying attention to one shade probably won't pay attention to two shades any better, but i can see the merit in the idea.

[Champ]

Just got pulled over on my way to work, right outside of my house, for "suspision of illegal window tint."  Sure it's illegal (35% with 50% being the 'limit'), but is this really the most exciting thing you have going today?

Of course as I was sitting there, I counted 3 cars also with illegal window tint go by me.

I've had the tint for coming on 2 years, and have never had a problem with it (been pulled over with it and they don't care).  I also have never talked to anyone who has been given a ticket or specifically pulled over for it.

And he didn't even give me a ticket, which I suppose I can be happy about.  But seriously..

[hounddog]

Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.? While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.? He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part.

You know, Greg, the more I think about this post, and the more I read his subsequent posts I realize that you have not read through some of his more anti-police drivel.  Take in example, his saying that police lie under oath as a general action. 

[hounddog]

What I wrote is true.? If the readers want to read [sometimes, much of the time, most of the time] in place of [all the time], please be my guest; I won't argue that.? The phenomenon I described ("testilying") is real as given to us by LEOs themselves.? Further, courts generally do not believe traffic defendants as anybody with any observational skills can ascertain for themselves in asingle sesson of court.? The truth is sometimes ugly.

As to the value of the advice given by some of the LEOs, I believe that they could learn much more from the readers than the readers can learn from the LEOs.? Much of what they assert just does not stand up to critical analysis.? If they are so easily offended, perhaps they should go into a different profession.

[James Young]

You know, Greg, the more I think about this post, and the more I read his subsequent posts I realize that you have not read through some of his more anti-police drivel.? Take in example, his saying that police lie under oath as a general action.?

?Testilying? is police slang for testimony that is exaggerated or outright false for the purpose of enhancing a case against somebody they legitimately feel is guilty or, more rarely, to fabricate a case against an innocent defendant. 

Perhaps you missed this:

The New York Times 2 May 1994, ?Accomplices to Perjury,? page A1 by Alan M. Dershowitz.  ?As I read about the disbelief expressed by some prosecutors... I thought of Claude Rains's classic response, in Casablanca on being told there was gambling in Rick's place: ?I'm shocked?shocked.? For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. ?Testilying??as the police call it?has long been an open secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges.?  [Emphasis added by JY]

Or this:

Los Angeles Times 11 February 1996, "Has the Drug War Created an Officer Liars' Club?" Joseph D. McNamara, then chief of police of San Jose [CA], said "Not many people took defense attorney Alan M. Dershowitz seriously when he charged that Los Angeles cops are taught to lie at the birth of their careers at the Police Academy. But as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests." He noted that "Within the last few years, police departments in Los Angeles, Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, Denver, New York and in other large cities have suffered scandals involving police personnel lying under oath about drug evidence."

I?ll let you decide how ?general? it is.

If you don?t do this and expose those who do, then you have my full support.

[Catman]

You know, Greg, the more I think about this post, and the more I read his subsequent posts I realize that you have not read through some of his more anti-police drivel.  Take in example, his saying that police lie under oath as a general action. 

It certainly is not general action.  However, guys like James will always find an example to back up their claims.  The reality is that there will always be examples of bad police behavior that can be pointed out.  As long as a minority of examples are available for James to use, he will use them.  That being said, I am not naive, there is always room for improvement.  I think, as a profession, we've made some very significant gains over the years in regards to ethics. 

To be honest here, I read his posts and think that his overall ideology is one of demanding professionalism but he often places his ideals in a utopian frame.  I think his assumptions and observations give too much weight to stereotypes and the belief that police officers are the engine that drives government corruption.

When he comments on how he would like police to carry out their duties I read it and consider his perspective.  Not because I think he is right all the time but because I believe it's important to remove myself from a perspective I am exposed to on a daily bases and consider a view which originates from another direction.  That shouldn't imply that I agree with the majority of his claims, but on occasion he does say things that I agree with.  I think the important perspective that's missing is that James is not a police officer and he has a hard time putting himself in the shoes of the average cop. 

[James Young]

Catman, no need to respond unless you wish.  My comments are not necessarily aimed at you.  I appreciate the honest input.

It certainly is not general action.  However, guys like James will always find an example to back up their claims.  The reality is that there will always be examples of bad police behavior that can be pointed out.  As long as a minority of examples are available for James to use, he will use them.

This triggers two questions.  First, how general is the behavior?  Absent police cooperation, this cannot be adequately ascertained but we need to try nonetheless.   Second, how pervasive does it have to be before it gets addressed?  Is it OK if just one cop obtains sexual favors to make a citation ?go away? or is the limit six?   

Ancillary questions are ?How does law enforcement respond to criticism??   The answer is ?not very well.?  The usual response is based on authority and/or power rather than the validity of their argument.  ?Because it?s the law? is a typical reason given to support enforcement for a particular law, without regard to the legitimacy of the law.  ?If the law supposes that,? said Mr. Bumble,? ?the law is a ass?a idiot. If that?s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience?by experience.?  Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

That being said, I am not naive, there is always room for improvement.  I think, as a profession, we've made some very significant gains over the years in regards to ethics.

The behavior that bothers me is the failure to hold your fellow professionals accountable.  When unethical or illegal behavior is observed, how is it dealt with?  Is there a blue wall of silence, a blue omerta? 

To be honest here, I read his posts and think that his overall ideology is one of demanding professionalism but he often places his ideals in a utopian frame.

This is true.  I want law enforcement to be professional, trained as professionals, equipped as professionals, and paid as professionals.  I want their job to be as safe as is possible given the nature of the job, which is why I call for them to develop techniques to minimize risk during traffic stops rather than stick their butt out into the road.  Therefore, we have the right to expect them to be professionals.   Anything less calls for removal from the ranks. 

I think his assumptions and observations give too much weight to stereotypes and the belief that police officers are the engine that drives government corruption.

We need to make a distinction between the legitimate, statutory enforcement agencies and the by-choice agencies created to generate profit for their particular village.  Officers in those villages are not professionals ? largely untrained, unqualified, and uncertified ? yet they have the same authority as a captain in Austin or NYC and the money they extract is just as real in Selma, Texas, as it is in Detroit.  The stereotype of Buford T. Justice prevails in thousands of jurisdictions that legitimate cops never see, yet they degrade your image just as surely as an Abner Louima incident.  What has hounddog done to eliminate this contamination upon your profession? 

When he comments on how he would like police to carry out their duties I read it and consider his perspective.  Not because I think he is right all the time but because I believe it's important to remove myself from a perspective I am exposed to on a daily bases and consider a view which originates from another direction.

Bravo.  Exactly.   A major fault of too many officers (and nearly ubiquitous) is that their only contact with the public is the human debris that fill their day or with other cops.  As I?ve pointed out in the past, this takes a very heavy toll on officers, a toll manifested in elevated levels of substance abuse, divorce, violence and suicide among the cop population.  The police perspective is far too narrow and unidirectional in my opinion and they tend to extrapolate the behavior of drunks, addicts, the mentally ill, and the sociopathic to the general public.  I also believe that they and the public would be better served if they dropped the ?We don?t write the law, we only enforce it,? mantra and relied more on science, reason and logic.  That would be very difficult for them but well worth the effort.

That shouldn't imply that I agree with the majority of his claims, but on occasion he does say things that I agree with.  I think the important perspective that's missing is that James is not a police officer and he has a hard time putting himself in the shoes of the average cop.

I cannot and will not put myself into the shoes of the average cop, nor do I ever pretend to do so.  However, equally important is that the officers have just as hard a time putting themselves into the shoes of the average citizen.  Indicative of this is the substitution of jargon or techno-speak for insightful analyses ? ?Let me guess, Rodney King was brutally beaten by wayward police who had no reason to even hit him with their PR-24's.?  What does using a ?PR-24? have to do with their behavior other than to infer some nebulous legitimacy through the use of insider terms?  What about addressing the behavior and the three decades of background that led up to it?  What about addressing the near digital wall separating the police view of that beating as justified and the public view that it was contemptible? 

[Tave]

LAPD is still under an ongoing investigation by the FBI, correct? Whatever the circumstances, there is an obvious tension between certain minority populations and law enforcement in that city.

The LA Times article James posted intruiges me. I knew people in high school who got picked up for petty drug violations, and often they would point out inconsistencies in the arresting officer's testimony. I noticed that most of these "testilies" where inconsequential and didn't affect their case (other than making the defense upset). I bet most of this "perjury" is accidental, as law enforcement is involved in these situations day in and day out, while the people who get caught experience a singular event. It makes sense that they could recall the situation more vividly than the officer, because they don't deal with any case but their own.

[hounddog]

This triggers two questions.? First, how general is the behavior?? Absent police cooperation, this cannot be adequately ascertained but we need to try nonetheless.? ?Second, how pervasive does it have to be before it gets addressed?? Is it OK if just one cop obtains sexual favors to make a citation ?go away? or is the limit six?? ?

Why do you assume it is every ok in our society?(that is the law enforcement society)? We prosecute our own, we lock our own up, sometimes we throw away the key.? How many times do you see on the nightly news, or read about a police officer who has been charged and or jailed?? Too often, I am afraid.? There are roughly 700,000 police officers in America, yet the vast majority are rarely ever given credit for the good they do.? ?Again, it can only be through anti-police thinking that you believe we would ever turn the other cheek to such reprehensible behavior as that which you mentioned.

Ancillary questions are ?How does law enforcement respond to criticism??? ?The answer is ?not very well.?? The usual response is based on authority and/or power rather than the validity of their argument.? ?Because it?s the law? is a typical reason given to support enforcement for a particular law, without regard to the legitimacy of the law.?

Because we are hired and required to uphold the law, not question its virtue.? We do not hold that luxury, nor should we.? To allow officers to question that which they were hired to do can only cause anarchy within our societies. (both civil and police)? That police must police themselves I do not argue, however, you would have us all believe that we are unwilling to do that very thing.

The behavior that bothers me is the failure to hold your fellow professionals accountable.? When unethical or illegal behavior is observed, how is it dealt with?? Is there a blue wall of silence, a blue omerta??

In 2005 and 2006 former chief Mark Hunter, Columbia Township Police, Jackson County Mi., was charged with and plead guilty of several things; False records to ATF, unlawfully selling firearms, ATF dearler license violations, false police reports, child pornography, and possession of cocaine not to mention the couple of local charges for obstructing an investigation.? He was by all accounts a very well liked supervisor among his men.? He was friendly and funny, treating his men well.? Yet it was one of his own rank and file officers who turned him over to the MSP when they found out about it.? Not in the news you say?? It happened.

This is true.? I want law enforcement to be professional, trained as professionals, equipped as professionals, and paid as professionals.? I want their job to be as safe as is possible given the nature of the job, which is why I call for them to develop techniques to minimize risk during traffic stops rather than stick their butt out into the road.? Therefore, we have the right to expect them to be professionals.? ?Anything less calls for removal from the ranks.?

No problems with this statment.? However, there is no money for training, they are not recognized as professionals by ANY other professional organization, there is little money now for equipment upgrades, and most salaries across the country hang in the $30,000 dollar range.? I do not know you see things, but none of this falls under professionals as you describe it in my eyes.? I know not one single professional position where the staff makes less than $40,000 as the general rule across the nation.? ?Teachers do not even fall into this catagory, the vast majority of them make north of $40,000.

We need to make a distinction between the legitimate, statutory enforcement agencies and the by-choice agencies created to generate profit for their particular village.? Officers in those villages are not professionals ? largely untrained, unqualified, and uncertified ? yet they have the same authority as a captain in Austin or NYC and the money they extract is just as real in Selma, Texas, as it is in Detroit.? The stereotype of Buford T. Justice prevails in thousands of jurisdictions that legitimate cops never see, yet they degrade your image just as surely as an Abner Louima incident.? What has hounddog done to eliminate this contamination upon your profession?

It is just that, a stereotype.? My stereotype of lawyers is that they are all money hungry, false lawsuit filing, low life scum who are going to hell because they will all lie cheat and steal.? Stereotypes are a dangerous thing, and it is people like you who actually believe them and only serve to propegate them who are the really dangerous ones.

Bravo.? Exactly.? ?A major fault of too many officers (and nearly ubiquitous) is that their only contact with the public is the human debris that fill their day or with other cops.? As I?ve pointed out in the past, this takes a very heavy toll on officers, a toll manifested in elevated levels of substance abuse, divorce, violence and suicide among the cop population.? The police perspective is far too narrow and unidirectional in my opinion and they tend to extrapolate the behavior of drunks, addicts, the mentally ill, and the sociopathic to the general public.? I also believe that they and the public would be better served if they dropped the ?We don?t write the law, we only enforce it,? mantra and relied more on science, reason and logic.? That would be very difficult for them but well worth the effort.

Once again, their situation is their fault in your eyes.? My suggestion to you,? get to know some real police officers.? Become a reserve officer somewhere for a year or more.? Then you will have a valid platform from which to make these insulting claims.?

I cannot and will not put myself into the shoes of the average cop, nor do I ever pretend to do so.? However, equally important is that the officers have just as hard a time putting themselves into the shoes of the average citizen.? Indicative of this is the substitution of jargon or techno-speak for insightful analyses ? ?Let me guess, Rodney King was brutally beaten by wayward police who had no reason to even hit him with their PR-24's.?? What does using a ?PR-24? have to do with their behavior other than to infer some nebulous legitimacy through the use of insider terms?? What about addressing the behavior and the three decades of background that led up to it?? What about addressing the near digital wall separating the police view of that beating as justified and the public view that it was contemptible??

Wrong, you could not be anymore wrong than you are here.? We have family, friends, distant relatives and other aquaintances which are normal citizens.? In fact, every single cop that is, was or will be, has been a normal citizen.? If you cannot put yourself into our shoes it gives me great insite as to who you are.?

The PR-24 comment is just one that comes out having used them in the past.? But, I noticed that you never really or directly answered by question.? Another insight into who you really are.

Lastly, I am through with you.? I will report any anti-police BS you post from here out, and I hold the moderators responsible for taking any such posts to task.

[Catman]

I'll let Hounddog answer for me as I find his responses appropriate.  Besides, I don't like long replies.  

[dazzleman]

I'll let Hounddog answer for me as I find his responses appropriate.? Besides, I don't like long replies. ?

Yes, you're a man of few words, Greg. 

[Catman]

Yes, you're a man of few words, Greg. 

Yeah, once in a while I'll throw in a few paragraphs but to be honest, I'm lazy when I get home.