Was browsing a semi-private NYPD board that a friend of mine who's an NYC cop recommended I take a peak at every so often. One of the officers posting asked why a marked unit from the Highway Division had been sitting in the shoulder of the Grand Central Parkway for what seemed like months.
This portion post was priceless:
QuoteIf the unmanned RMP has been put there to reduce speed etc I suggest it be moved to a different spot every year or so. Said RMP has been there so long that yesterday I spotted a homeless guy relieving himself on the side of the vehicle, in fact I think he lives inside the RMP
A second post, by a fellow officer, was equally hillarious, if not simply pathetic:
QuoteLOL.
About 2 weeks ago I saw a minor rear ender right there. The driver of the car that got hit ran over to the RMP and tapped on the window, then walked away shaking his head.
:thumbsup:
lmao!
haha that sounds like something you'd see on Reno 911 :lol:
That's actually pretty funny.
:lol:
Wow...
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 04, 2007, 10:04:38 PM
haha that sounds like something you'd see on Reno 911 :lol:
That's the first thing I thought too. :thumbsup:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on December 04, 2007, 10:07:38 PM
That's actually pretty funny.
That's actually done in Pleasant Ridge...
Rand CO, between Walden and the Continental Divide on 125. There's an old sheriff's Bronco parked next to the post office/bar/entire town. They've even got a straw man with a uniform sitting in the driver's seat.
Alot of places actually are doing this. There are places that sell manniquin torsos holding a radar/laser gun to sit in the empty cruisers. There's even one place that's using plywood cutouts that look like a cruiser as you approach it from behind.
My town does this. They put a mannequin called "safety man" in the police car, so people think it's an officer giving out tickets and slow down.
The only difference is they don't leave the car there for months. It's usually there for a few hours at a time.
When law enforcement treats itself like a joke . . .
Quote from: James Young on December 05, 2007, 09:24:58 AM
When law enforcement treats itself like a joke . . .
It's called "deterrence."
[inner monologue]Why am I responding to this? I said I wouldn't respond to James Young. I know it won't do any good.[/inner monologue]
One of these days they're actually gonna change up the dummies with a real guy around my home, and I'll be so screwed :lol:
Wait until they have robot police.
Quote from: sparkplug on December 05, 2007, 07:34:45 PM
Wait until they have robot police.
We have robot police. Havn't you seen automated red light and speed cameras?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 05, 2007, 02:29:36 PM
It's called "deterrence."
[inner monologue]Why am I responding to this? I said I wouldn't respond to James Young. I know it won't do any good.[/inner monologue]
Deterrence eh? So let's see. People seeing the dummy cop car and cop slow down in that area, because they see what they believe is a speed trap. And that is lauded because it deters speeders,even though its a fair sssumption that people will go right back to speeding within the next 2-3 miles.
Now compare that to a situation in which real live cops do set up a speed trap on the road but about a mile before that speed trap someone is standing by the side of the road with a sign that says "slow down, speed trap ahead". That person is performing the same function as the fake car and cop; causing people to obey the law. The only difference is in this case the cops ability to generate revenue is reduced. And of course the person with the sign can be arrested.
As has been said time and time again, most speeding enforcement is about the money, not safety.
Quote from: etypejohn on December 06, 2007, 10:27:05 AM
Deterrence eh? So let's see. People seeing the dummy cop car and cop slow down in that area, because they see what they believe is a speed trap. And that is lauded because it deters speeders,even though its a fair sssumption that people will go right back to speeding within the next 2-3 miles.
Now compare that to a situation in which real live cops do set up a speed trap on the road but about a mile before that speed trap someone is standing by the side of the road with a sign that says "slow down, speed trap ahead". That person is performing the same function as the fake car and cop; causing people to obey the law. The only difference is in this case the cops ability to generate revenue is reduced. And of course the person with the sign can be arrested.
As has been said time and time again, most speeding enforcement is about the money, not safety.
These programs are frequently used by departments without the financial and/or manpower resources to spend on regular traffic enforcement. It's a cheap, imperfect alternative to traffic enforcement, usually set up in an area of either high complaints or high speed-related crashes. In these cases, because enforcement isn't a possibility, deterrence is attempted. As you've clearly stated, deterrence only goes so far in changing driver habits, so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.
Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about
intent.
And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal! :rolleyes:
Some of you guys are actually upset about the dummy-cruiser?
It's more funny than anything, and once you identify it it's a non-issue.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 12:29:25 PM
Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.
And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal! :rolleyes:
(http://www.noheat.com/images/Bullshit-Button.jpg)
Ah, nothing like a little intellectual debate, huh Raza?
Yea, you caught me. It's all bullshit. I was required to post it, though, as I'm the CarSpin Disinformation Officer of the Month (you'll note that I changed my profile to reflect my position, just so there's no more confusion). Plus, I always go out of my way to intentionally lie to people in other states on internet message boards, even though the information I gave doesn't directly effect me in any way.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 01:24:26 PM
Ah, nothing like a little intellectual debate, huh Raza?
Yea, you caught me. It's all bullshit. I was required to post it, though, as I'm the CarSpin Disinformation Officer of the Month (you'll note that I changed my profile to reflect my position, just so there's no more confusion). Plus, I always go out of my way to intentionally lie to people in other states on internet message boards, even though the information I gave doesn't directly effect me in any way.
How is a dummy officer any different than a guy stopping the coppers from getting their revenue? Except that the coppers don't get their revenue...
I'll just go ahead and re-post the explanation, Raza. It's just easier that way.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 12:29:25 PM
These programs are frequently used by departments without the financial and/or manpower resources to spend on regular traffic enforcement. It's a cheap, imperfect alternative to traffic enforcement, usually set up in an area of either high complaints or high speed-related crashes. In these cases, because enforcement isn't a possibility, deterrence is attempted. As you've clearly stated, deterrence only goes so far in changing driver habits, so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.
Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.
And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal! :rolleyes:
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 01:53:19 PM
I'll just go ahead and re-post the explanation, Raza. It's just easier that way.
(http://www.noheat.com/images/Bullshit-Button.jpg)
I can go on all day.
I'm sure you can, Raza, but I won't. Have a pleasant afternoon.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 12:29:25 PM
These programs are frequently used by departments without the financial and/or manpower resources to spend on regular traffic enforcement. It's a cheap, imperfect alternative to traffic enforcement, usually set up in an area of either high complaints or high speed-related crashes. In these cases, because enforcement isn't a possibility, deterrence is attempted. As you've clearly stated, deterrence only goes so far in changing driver habits, so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.
OK
Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.
I would argue the intent isn't to stop the officer from enforcing the law. The intent of the guy with the sign is to prevent people from getting a ticket. The officer can still enforce the law as he sees fit. the only difference is there are less people to catch because less are speeding. The net result is the same in either case. People slowing down in respond to a perceived threat.
And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal! :rolleyes:
Your department may not be typical.
Go read: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-048.pdf
In summary it says there is evidence that tickets are used as a revenue generating source and it contains quoted statments from municipal officials to that effect.
I'm not questioning your sincerity in what you believe to be true but in this instance I believe I will put more credence in the findings of a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loius than I will the statements of one officer of the law.
Plus, consider this. Your department is going to exist whether its officers write traffic tickets or not. So even though you might not make vast sums of money from traffic tickets I would submit that writing those tickets are still vital in that the revenue gained still helps to offset operating costs that would be in place regardless of whether you write those tickets are not.
Also, you might find http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21980 a bit amusing
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 01:53:19 PM
I'll just go ahead and re-post the explanation, Raza. It's just easier that way.
I generally stay within the speed limits and seldom preform illegal driving maneuvers. I point that out so you know I have no ax to grind and that I generally respect the law and policemen. However, I thing the police community does itself a disservice and would get a bit more respect if they just admitted that traffic enforcement is about safety
and revenue. But then again, I've always tried to employ the honest approach.
Quote from: etypejohn on December 06, 2007, 02:00:18 PM
Your department may not be typical.
Go read: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-048.pdf
In summary it says there is evidence that tickets are used as a revenue generating source and it contains quoted statments from municipal officials to that effect.
I'm not questioning your sincerity in what you believe to be true but in this instance I believe I will put more credence in the findings of a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loius than I will the statements of one officer of the law.
Plus, consider this. Your department is going to exist whether its officers write traffic tickets or not. So even though you might not make vast sums of money from traffic tickets I would submit that writing those tickets are still vital in that the revenue gained still helps to offset operating costs that would be in place regardless of whether you write those tickets are not.
Also, you might find http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21980 a bit amusing
Ok, I'll be honest...I stopped reading the Fed's study when I hit the advanced nuclear physics calculation that related to dark matter in the universe about mid-way through that they used to support their claims.
I will give you a little insight and comment on the first half of the study, though.
First, I've worked for three municipal police departments in my 9 years as a full-time officer. I've only worked for one that had anything resembling a traffic citation quota, and that was directly connected to statistical crash data throughout the city (ie, we were required to write a certain number of citations, but the cites had to be in high-crash areas). The other two had no kind of quota system of any kind. I also know alot of police officers. We "talk shop" as much as anybody else, and I can't think of a single other officer I know who has any kind of quota system at his/her department. So, while I'm just one officer, I have a good bit of experience, that experience is in multiple locales, and I also have information from other officers in adjacent locales.
As for the article, I noticed that there were alot of references to "city officicals," "mayors," and various other politicians. I won't say that politicians don't see traffic citations as a form of revenue...politicians are greedy little creatures who would, for the most part, steal the fillings from a dead man's teeth if they could make a buck off of them. So, do politicians see dollar signs in traffic tickets? You're damn right they do! But, they see dollar signs in pretty much everything!
The question for debate wasn't if politicians wanted to make money off of traffic tickets, it was if law enforcement used traffic enforcement as a form of revenue. I can say, from my personal experience and from what other officers I know have told me, that law enforcement has no interest in using traffic enforcement as a revenue-generator. Speaking from a patrolman standpoint (ie, I'm not the brass, I'm just the worker bee), there's absolutely no reason for me to even care about the revenue generated (if any) from the citations I write. I don't get a bonus. I don't get a better car or better equipment. Whether I write 1 ticket ot 1000, I still have to come in and do my job every day. I suppose that there are oddball departments that reward their officers for high citations numbers, but they're so rare as to nearly be things of urban legend!
So, in the end, no matter what the underlying motives of the politicians or the police brass might be, the individual officer out there who decides whether or not you're getting a cite could really give a rat's ass less about revenue. And, since we're the ones with the tickets and the ink, we make the call. So, I'm being as honest as I can be from my personal experiences and position. If you'd like a different viewpoint, I suppose you could scrounge up a politician or chief of police, but I'm neither of those.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 02:40:12 PM
I won't say that politicians don't see traffic citations as a form of revenue...politicians are greedy little creatures who would, for the most part, steal the fillings from a dead man's teeth if they could make a buck off of them. So, do politicians see dollar signs in traffic tickets? You're damn right they do! But, they see dollar signs in pretty much everything!
The question for debate wasn't if politicians wanted to make money off of traffic tickets, it was if law enforcement used traffic enforcement as a form of revenue.
The question then is perhaps: How much influence can politicians- and by that I mean politicians at all levels who may also exert their influence through grant moneys- have on the operating poicies of police departments?
My outsider's perspective is: A whole bunch.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2007, 04:34:38 PM
The question then is perhaps: How much influence can politicians- and by that I mean politicians at all levels who may also exert their influence through grant moneys- have on the operating poicies of police departments?
My outsider's perspective is: A whole bunch.
Grant money comes from the state. Normally, what will happen (at least in NJ) is that the "municipal administrator," basically a non-elected person whose full time job it is to run the town, will apply for a grant. The police department will receive the money, but must use it for a specific purpose. Normally, this means DUI enforcement. The money from the state will pay for an extra officer on duty to pull people over for various infractions to see if they are sober.
This is a state issue, not a local police issue. Basically, the state pays for a few officers to get some OT, and the towns go along with it. The state probably breaks even, or loses money, depending on how many citations or arrests are made, which normally aren't that many.
The only way to make "quick money" off the grant programs is to do a roadside registration check. That, admittedly in NJ, is to raise money. In NJ, it's been done on bridges to barrier islands on busy weekends. Basically, an officer will stand at the point where the bridge empties onto the island (in other words, nowhere to hide for the drivers) and look at everyone's registration decal. If yours is expired, the officer will direct you into a parking lot and write a ticket. The towns are paid by the state to do this, and the state and local municipalities have admitted it is for revenue generation. Personally, I don't count this as "traffic enforcement," however.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 06, 2007, 06:01:48 PM
Grant money comes from the state.
Yes, but whose idea was it to make the grant in the first place, and whose idea was it to apply for and conform to the requirements of said grant?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2007, 04:34:38 PM
The question then is perhaps: How much influence can politicians- and by that I mean politicians at all levels who may also exert their influence through grant moneys- have on the operating poicies of police departments?
My outsider's perspective is: A whole bunch.
In my experience, politicians realistically have very little direct influence on the operation of a police department. Of course, that depends a great deal on the administration of the individual PD as well. A stong, independent chief of police will tend to run his department as he sees fit, not as the politicians want him to. A weak chief will bend more easily to the political will. And, unfortunately, there are politics in law enforcement. It's really a matter of degrees.
When it comes to grants, it really depends on from whom and for what the grant is obtained. In my experience, grants are usually applied for by the department, not by the city. Yes, such grants must be approved by the city (especially when "matching monies" must be contributed by the city for approval of the grant), but the specifics on what the grants pay for tend to be spelled out in the grant AND (depending on the type of grant) at the whim of the department. Some grants are much more open and flexible than others. The only traffic-specific grants I've ever seen are related to seatbelt and DUI enforcement.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2007, 07:05:41 PM
Yes, but whose idea was it to make the grant in the first place, and whose idea was it to apply for and conform to the requirements of said grant?
The grant is usually made either by the state or the federal government for the use of local departments. I suppose that most, if not all, grants were at one time or another a political creation. However, many of those grants have been in existance for so long that they hold very little in the way of political undertones anymore. And, as I said, in my experience it's the choice of the department, not the politicans, whether to apply for a grant.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2007, 02:40:12 PM
As for the article, I noticed that there were alot of references to "city officicals," "mayors," and various other politicians. I won't say that politicians don't see traffic citations as a form of revenue...politicians are greedy little creatures who would, for the most part, steal the fillings from a dead man's teeth if they could make a buck off of them. So, do politicians see dollar signs in traffic tickets? You're damn right they do! But, they see dollar signs in pretty much everything!
The question for debate wasn't if politicians wanted to make money off of traffic tickets, it was if law enforcement used traffic enforcement as a form of revenue. I can say, from my personal experience and from what other officers I know have told me, that law enforcement has no interest in using traffic enforcement as a revenue-generator. Speaking from a patrolman standpoint (ie, I'm not the brass, I'm just the worker bee), there's absolutely no reason for me to even care about the revenue generated (if any) from the citations I write. I don't get a bonus. I don't get a better car or better equipment. Whether I write 1 ticket ot 1000, I still have to come in and do my job every day. I suppose that there are oddball departments that reward their officers for high citations numbers, but they're so rare as to nearly be things of urban legend!
Just for clarity I was not arguing that the police departments themselves were behind using tickets to generate revenue. I assumed it was understood that the police departments are under direction of local governments and it was that local government that asks the police dept to start issuing more tickets. I could search the news archives here in Houston and show that it has been done here and I suspect Houston is not unique in that respect.
I would be quite surprised if the average chief of police or whatever title is appropriate, is willing to tell the mayor or city council "no" if he is asked to tell his officers to write more tickets. I suspect in many jurisdictions the chief of police wouldn't last too long if they did that.
bing_oh writes:
Quote. . . so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.
Why don?t they just do NO enforcement? LAPD is very small force (10,000) covering over 1,000square miles and 10+ million people. They do very little traffic control and speed enforcement is unheard of. Yet, LA has an extremely low fatality rate even though freeway speeds can be 80+ mph. The other night, I merged onto the 15 at 95 mph, faster than usual but right with traffic and without incident.
QuoteAnd finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement.
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you write but the facts just don?t support you. Whether the equipment is used to generate revenue or not, it is a sunk cost; therefore, if it can be used to generate a few hundred thousand a year, all the better. Many jurisdictions are openly admitting that they want to increase revenues through the use of traffic fines, pronounced ?speeding? since it is so common and is the low hanging fruit.
As etypejohn pointed out, your department will exist with or without ticket money. There are thousands of little villages, a dozen or so along US 69 through Oklahoma, whose sole source of revenue is traffic fines. Typical of these is the infamous little village of Stringtown, where unemployment is 25%-50% and median income is $19,643 for males and $14,861 for females.
Household median income is just over $20K. The government IS the police force; the mayor is the judge. Absent those tickets, they cease to exist as a government. They provide no city services other than a small park. They handle no criminal calls, leaving that for the Atoka County Sheriff. Tell me again how legitimate they are. Yet, they have just as much authority to extract money from citizens as you do. Oh, you?re POST-certified; they?re not.
Quote from: James Young on December 07, 2007, 08:31:56 PM
Why don’t they just do NO enforcement?
"...protect, defend, and
uphold the Constitution and
the laws of the State of Ohio..."
That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit. You want any other answer? Talk to the
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (as opposed to the executive branch, which I'm a part of) that creates the law.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 07, 2007, 09:47:05 PM
"...protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State of Ohio..."
That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit. You want any other answer? Talk to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (as opposed to the executive branch, which I'm a part of) that creates the law.
You might as well talk to a cow pie, bing. Oh, wait, I think you are.
Quote from: hounddog on December 07, 2007, 10:18:40 PM
You might as well talk to a cow pie, bing. Oh, wait, I think you are.
I'm well aware, Tony. I always promise myself that I won't respond to James, then I go and do it anyways. I have a legitimate excuse this evening...I was "Christmas shopping" all day and may have ended up at an establishment of ill repute that sold adult beverages. Damn draft beer!
Quote from: bing_oh on December 07, 2007, 10:24:46 PM
I'm well aware, Tony. I always promise myself that I won't respond to James, then I go and do it anyways. I have a legitimate excuse this evening...I was "Christmas shopping" all day and may have ended up at an establishment of ill repute that sold adult beverages. Damn draft beer!
Strip bar? :cheers:
Quote from: hounddog on December 07, 2007, 10:26:52 PM
Strip bar? :cheers:
I may have been in an establishment where I contributed to the financial well-being of scantily-clad (or unclad) females, yes. :lol: And it was worth every dollar.
bing_oh writes:
QuoteYou want any other answer? Talk to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. . .
Sure, the old ?I don?t write-the-laws-I-just-enforce-them? mantra. I have talked to the legislative branch in 5 different states and have been denied access to other legislators in 3 of them because we had not contributed to their re-election campaign fund. Yet, LE officials are afforded unlimited time to present ?testimony? that is better described as propaganda, and do so with public funds. When was the last time that you and/or your agency asked for the installation of scientifically sound engineering recommendations for speed limits (or other rules)? I bet you have never done that. I bet that you never will do that.
Why is it that every time some new academic, scientific, or engineering study or survey is released, that those of us who criticize the status quo are proven right and the anti-destination league (LE agencies, insurance companies, municipalities, and legislators) are proven, once again, to be wrong? Might I add, not just
wrong but actively opposed to improvements in traffic flow, traffic safety and motorists rights?
hounddog writes with his usual eloquence:
QuoteYou might as well talk to a cow pie, bing. Oh, wait, I think you are.
When they can?t refute you but can only call you names, they?re on the run. Happy trails.
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2007, 09:59:35 AM
When they can’t refute you but can only call you names, they’re on the run. Happy trails.
First off, it is an internet board, no eloquence required.
Secondly, you refuse to listen to any information passed on including state law on how ticket monies are divided, often calling us liars, uneducated, stupid and lazy.
In essence, there is no debating with someone like you. Your only goal is try to sound intelligent by using raw data, which anyone with any mathematical or statistical education knows to be just plain incorrect. All data must be poured through, quantified, anylized, and catagorized. Therefore, there is no reason to debate you as if you are an intelligent adult.
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2007, 09:59:35 AM
Sure, the old “I don’t write-the-laws-I-just-enforce-them” mantra.
You missed a spot, James. Lemme bypass your creative editing and get that for you...
Quote from: bing_oh on December 07, 2007, 09:47:05 PM
"...protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State of Ohio..."
That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit.
I seem to recall a thread not too long ago where you accused police officers in general of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. I believe that purposely failing to enforce the laws as per my oath of office would fall under those catagories. So, which way ya want it? Can't have your cake and eat it too...
And, you're absolutely right...I've never asked for an engineering study associated with speed limits. Wanna know why? CUZ I'M A FRICKIN'
PATROL COP!!! What, you think I can wave my magical cop wand and change whatever I want? You think I can walk into the Govenor's officer without an appointment and have the laws instantly rewritten? What world do you live in?!?! I've probably got LESS power than the average citizen because I'm a public servant and people think that I shouldn't have an opinion! And, quite frankly, if I had the amazing powers you think I have, I'd have alot higher priorities than the speed limit surveys you think are so damn important.
Your world view and your priorities are all kinds of screwed up, Mr. Young.
Oh no, not this again. :rolleyes:
Guys, you have the same fight over and over.
Yea, I know, Daz. I'm really not sure why I keep subjecting myself to this. I mean, I seriously think James copies and pastes his answers over and over again from one thread to the next, so there's really no progress. I'm like a heroin fiend...I know I should stop and that nothing good will come from it, but I just can't!
Personally, I'm just hoping that someday James will come whipping through my town is flagrant disregard of the speed limits set without the input of proper engineering surveys and we can have this debate in person. Probably never happen, but I cop can dream, can't he?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2007, 10:47:45 AM
Yea, I know, Daz. I'm really not sure why I keep subjecting myself to this. I mean, I seriously think James copies and pastes his answers over and over again from one thread to the next, so there's really no progress. I'm like a heroin fiend...I know I should stop and that nothing good will come from it, but I just can't!
Personally, I'm just hoping that someday James will come whipping through my town is flagrant disregard of the speed limits set without the input of proper engineering surveys and we can have this debate in person. Probably never happen, but I cop can dream, can't he?
:lol:
Dude, you're a glutton for punishment. That's one traffic stop you'd probably be sorry you ever made. He'd bust your balls every step of the way, man.
You'd do much better pulling me over. I wouldn't get upset about the ticket, and it would make a great story to tell the other guys on the forum..... :evildude:
Quote from: dazzleman on December 08, 2007, 10:58:34 AM
:lol:
Dude, you're a glutton for punishment. That's one traffic stop you'd probably be sorry you ever made. He'd bust your balls every step of the way, man.You'd do much better pulling me over. I wouldn't get upset about the ticket, and it would make a great story to tell the other guys on the forum..... :evildude:
But that is ok, after all, it would be at time and a half!
Quote from: hounddog on December 08, 2007, 10:59:40 AM
But that is ok, after all, it would be at time and a half!
:lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on December 08, 2007, 10:58:34 AM
:lol:
Dude, you're a glutton for punishment. That's one traffic stop you'd probably be sorry you ever made. He'd bust your balls every step of the way, man.
You'd do much better pulling me over. I wouldn't get upset about the ticket, and it would make a great story to tell the other guys on the forum..... :evildude:
Rule #1 in LE...they can have the last word, as long as you get the last act. At the very least, I'd get a nice cite out of it. Best case scenario would involve matching jewelry (nice silver bracelets :lol: ).
I've been getting my balls busted by motorists for 9 years, now. I have yet to lose a "debate" on the side of the road, though...I rather look forward to them, actually.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2007, 11:06:07 AM
Rule #1 in LE...they can have the last word, as long as you get the last act. At the very least, I'd get a nice cite out of it. Best case scenario would involve matching jewelry (nice silver bracelets :lol: ).
I've been getting my balls busted by motorists for 9 years, now. I have yet to lose a "debate" on the side of the road, though...I rather look forward to them, actually.
You never argue directly with a guy who holds a ticket book, 'cuffs and a gun. :evildude:
Quote from: dazzleman on December 08, 2007, 11:08:11 AM
You never argue directly with a guy who holds a ticket book, 'cuffs and a gun. :evildude:
I always knew you were a wise man, Daz!
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2007, 11:09:50 AM
I always knew you were a wise man, Daz!
Honestly, whether you're right or wrong, the side of the road is not the place to argue with a police officer. He has the ability and power to f*$k you over in that situation, and it's not a situation where either person can be comfortable.
If you really think the officer is wrong, you can take it to court. Arguing with him will only make him more determined to give you a ticket, and back it up. I'm much more of a 'slip under the radar' type of guy, and if I do get busted, I acknowledge generally that I deserve it and move on. I don't see 'unjust' traffic tickets as a highly deserving cause, in the grand scheme of things.
If I were ever actually innocent (hasn't happened yet), I imagine I'd fight it. But I can't see getting all worked up over a minor penalty that I deserve and, truth be told, should get hit with more often than I do. :evildude:
hounddog writes:
QuoteSecondly, you refuse to listen to any information passed on including state law on how ticket monies are divided, often calling us liars, uneducated, stupid and lazy.
And you have yet to recognize the fact that there are thousands of CS little villages out there who write citations for money and KEEP all that money. As I?ve pointed out, many of them are not even incorporated and their "officers" are not POST-certified but they have the same authority as you do. You also refuse to recognize that even large departments with sunk costs (cars & equipment) use citations to supplement municipal coffers, freeing up money for other purposes. And most important, you refuse to recognize that the fines are largely for perfectly reasonable behavior.
In any case, the money ? to the tune of an estimated $100 billion a year -- comes from motorists and goes somewhere, often obfuscated by those who receive it, justified in the name of the false god of security. According to your reasoning, it?s OK to abuse those motorists for doing reasonable things because your department doesn?t get to keep the money. I got news for you: It?s still wrong.
QuoteYour only goal is try to sound intelligent by using raw data, which anyone with any mathematical or statistical education knows to be just plain incorrect. All data must be poured through, quantified, anylized, and categorized.
On the contrary, my goal for 50 years has been two-fold: (1) to improve the performance of the traffic safety institution and (2) to assure that that happens within the parameter of expanding motorists? civil liberties. I don?t use raw data but I am curious as to why you would believe that I do. I also wonder why you want to make a distinction because it makes no sense. I use publicly available information, preferably from independent sources but also from the very biased (anti-motorists) NHTSA, and then synthesize it with other information to develop a theory to explain it. This should not be news as it is called the scientific method, utilized around the globe. How well the theory explains the phenomena and how well the theory predicts future findings is a test of its validity.
I don?t write for you but to get the message out that much of the public pronouncements coming from the safety/enforcement establishment is bogus and self-serving. Whether I sound intelligent or not is best judged by my target audience, which excludes you.
bing_oh writes:
QuoteThat's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit.
Simple question for you then: When you pin on your badge and swear to uphold Ohio law, does that relieve you of your human responsibility to act in a manner that improves the human condition? While I am arguing on a much too broad basis, you are arguing from a much too narrow perspective. I want to improve traffic flow and safety and the things that I have long suggested have proven to be correct, yet you speak against them because that?s what you have been told all along. You must learn to question authority but that is very difficult when you
are the authority.
QuoteI seem to recall a thread not too long ago where you accused police officers in general of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance.
Not quite. No doubt there are officers who are malfeasant and certain agencies that permit or encourage such behavior. The vast majority of LEOs sincerely believe in what they are doing and that it is the best course for society. My complaint against those good officers is that they have not done nearly enough to root out the criminals who wear the badge. Whether the hypocrisy is the mild ?professional courtesy? of evading responsibility for actions that would yield a citizen a citation, or the deadly serious active cover-up of serious felonies, it still violates the oath that you quoted above.
QuoteAnd, you're absolutely right...I've never asked for an engineering study associated with speed limits. Wanna know why? CUZ I'M A FRICKIN' PATROL COP!!! What, you think I can wave my magical cop wand and change whatever I want?
No, but that?s a pretty good straw man. Besides, I don?t want you to ask for a an engineering study; I want you to tell your Captain who will pass it along to your PR guy who will go to the legislature, that they should base traffic law on existing science and engineering data because it yields a better result than their current method of political spoils and protecting vested interests.
QuoteYou think I can walk into the Govenor's officer without an appointment and have the laws instantly rewritten?
No,
you can?t do that but your agency can and does so by invitation. Do you really believe that we are so na?ve that we don?t know your agency, other municipal agencies and state agencies
routinely meet with individual legislators and ?testify? before the assembly, often with material that is proven false.
QuoteWhat world do you live in?
I live in the world of science and reason rather than the world of special interests and institutional behavior.
QuoteI've probably got LESS power than the average citizen because I'm a public servant and people think that I shouldn't have an opinion!
As I?ve said before, it is your responsibility to voice your opinion as a professional with the caveat that what you say must be correct, just the same as me.
QuoteAnd, quite frankly, if I had the amazing powers you think I have, I'd have alot higher priorities than the speed limit surveys you think are so damn important.
Traffic surveys are just a tool. The real story is the use of public authority by special interests to further their interests but which results also in a degradation of the public good. John Q. Public gets a RLC citation for running a red-light, where the yellow light time had been reduced by 1.5 seconds less than the required engineering standard for that roadway, just so Redflex can make $100 from it, his insurance gets jacked up by $500 for 3 years, and the municipality makes another $170, all just because they set up the light so that more Johns would get caught there, and despite the fact that RLCs increase crashes at equipped intersections. The critical story is the public policy that allows or even promotes this type of abuse, not the behavior itself, much less those apologists who defend it irrationally.
Public policy is a very high calling and one that I take very seriously.
This is one of those towns that don't profit from speeding cites:
Oklahoma: Speed Trap Town Goes Bankrupt
Without speeding ticket revenue, a former speed trap town is forced to declare bankruptcy.
The town of Moffett, Oklahoma announced on Wendnesday that it had filed for Chapter 9 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The move comes just two months after the state attorney general and Department of Public Safety declared the town of 178 an illegal speed trap, stripping its authority to issue speeding tickets.
Without the steady stream of citation revenue generated from motorists passing through on U.S. Highway 64, the town is unable to manage the $200,000 in debts incurred by the former mayor. Moffett will likely be forced to unincorporate as a consequence of its financial difficulties.
Source: Moffett files bankruptcy (Sequoyah County Times (OK), 2/3/2007)
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2007, 09:38:52 PM
This is one of those towns that don't profit from speeding cites:
Oklahoma: Speed Trap Town Goes Bankrupt
Without speeding ticket revenue, a former speed trap town is forced to declare bankruptcy.
The town of Moffett, Oklahoma announced on Wendnesday that it had filed for Chapter 9 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The move comes just two months after the state attorney general and Department of Public Safety declared the town of 178 an illegal speed trap, stripping its authority to issue speeding tickets.
Without the steady stream of citation revenue generated from motorists passing through on U.S. Highway 64, the town is unable to manage the $200,000 in debts incurred by the former mayor. Moffett will likely be forced to unincorporate as a consequence of its financial difficulties.
Source: Moffett files bankruptcy (Sequoyah County Times (OK), 2/3/2007)
Why does a town of 178 even need an LEO? :huh: I'm sure they have a Sheriff's Dept there.
Quote from: Catman on December 08, 2007, 09:48:43 PM
Why does a town of 178 even need an LEO? :huh: I'm sure they have a Sheriff's Dept there.
I think JY's point is that he wasn't a LEO, but a revenue gathering officer.
I'm sure that towns like this are a statistical anomoly, but they do serve to point out that the current system can encourage corruption.
(no, I don't have a proposal for a perfect utopia)
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2007, 01:42:36 PM
Simple question for you then: When you pin on your badge and swear to uphold Ohio law, does that relieve you of your human responsibility to act in a manner that improves the human condition? While I am arguing on a much too broad basis, you are arguing from a much too narrow perspective. I want to improve traffic flow and safety and the things that I have long suggested have proven to be correct, yet you speak against them because that’s what you have been told all along. You must learn to question authority but that is very difficult when you are the authority.
"Improves the human condition"?!?! With all due respect, what the hell were we talking about, again? Oh yea...you don't like speed limits. SPEED LIMITS. How, exactly, does increasing speed limits like you want "improve the human condition?" I mean, if you wanted to talk about criminal aspects of child abuse or domestic violence, then we could discuss improving the human condition. Instead, you think that letting people drive faster "improves the human condition." Like I said before, your priorities are all kinds of screwed up.
QuoteNot quite. No doubt there are officers who are malfeasant and certain agencies that permit or encourage such behavior. The vast majority of LEOs sincerely believe in what they are doing and that it is the best course for society. My complaint against those good officers is that they have not done nearly enough to root out the criminals who wear the badge. Whether the hypocrisy is the mild “professional courtesy” of evading responsibility for actions that would yield a citizen a citation, or the deadly serious active cover-up of serious felonies, it still violates the oath that you quoted above.
"The criminals who wear the badge." Puh-leese! Yes, show me all of the criminals in LE. Do you want to know why police officers who violate the law garner big headlines? Because they're a rarity. It's almosr 2008. Law enforcement in the US is at the height of its professionalism. Police officers today are better screened pre-hire and more highly trained than any time in history. Until we reach the level of technological advancement where we can create perfect robots to do police work, there will always be a chance for corruption...police officers are still human and prone to human error. But, to imply that there is a culture of corruption in modern law enforcement is ludecrous.
By the way, while I personally disagree with the idea of "professional courtesy," there's nothing corrupt about it. Have YOU ever gotten a warning for a traffic violation? Was THAT warning a form of corruption? If you want to eliminate officer discretion...which is what "professional courtesy" is...fine by me. Every violation we see, we stop. Every person we stop, we cite. No excuses. No warnings. No slack. Sound good to you?
QuoteNo, but that’s a pretty good straw man. Besides, I don’t want you to ask for a an engineering study; I want you to tell your Captain who will pass it along to your PR guy who will go to the legislature, that they should base traffic law on existing science and engineering data because it yields a better result than their current method of political spoils and protecting vested interests.
I don't have a Captain. We don't have a "PR guy." I can't remember the last time anyone in my department had direct contact with a member of the legislature. My department is too small for all of that. Are we a rarity? Actually, no. Somewhere around 90% of the sworn police officers in the nation are members of "small departments," and fall into the same catagory as I do. So, once again, your obtuse world of political corruption and vast government/insurance conspiracy theories falls apart. Oops.
QuoteNo, you can’t do that but your agency can and does so by invitation. Do you really believe that we are so na?ve that we don’t know your agency, other municipal agencies and state agencies routinely meet with individual legislators and “testify” before the assembly, often with material that is proven false.
See above.
QuoteI live in the world of science and reason rather than the world of special interests and institutional behavior.
Guess we disagree with about everything tonight. I dont' see much reason in anything you advocate.
QuoteAs I’ve said before, it is your responsibility to voice your opinion as a professional with the caveat that what you say must be correct, just the same as me.
Actually, no, you can speak with impunity (and frequently do, from what I've seen). There's no expectation that waht you say is accurate or true.
Quote from: James Young on December 07, 2007, 08:31:56 PM
Why don?t they just do NO enforcement? LAPD is very small force (10,000) covering over 1,000square miles and 10+ million people. They do very little traffic control and speed enforcement is unheard of.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LAPD+TARGETS+RED-LIGHT+RUNNERS%3B+FINES,+ENFORCEMENT+INCREASED+FOR...-a083895595
http://www.lapdonline.org/valley_traffic
http://www.lapdonline.org/central_traffic
http://www.lacity.org/LAPD/traffic/dre/bioniels.htm
http://auntbeep.blogspot.com/2005/06/buckle-up-or-youll-go-to-court-in-los.html
http://roadbeacon.org/1300/1327.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val*
http://lapdblog.typepad.com/lapd_blog/2007/07/results-of-4th-.html
http://www.easyir.com/easyir/prssrel.do?easyirid=A558CA325D8ADB62&version=live&prid=180852
http://www.lapdonline.org/special_operations_support_division/content_basic_view/1033
Once again you are full of shit.
To be fair, I think he's saying that traffic isn't as big of a concern as other crimes. Not that they never do traffic enforcement.
It's probably true of any large city. I can get away with driving a lot faster in Phoenix or Denver than I can in my hometown.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2007, 11:54:25 AM
To be fair, I think he's saying that traffic isn't as big of a concern as other crimes. Not that they never do traffic enforcement.
It's probably true of any large city. I can get away with driving a lot faster in Phoenix or Denver than I can in my hometown.
NO he clearly said it's unheard of. More BS from the police-basher.
Quote from: rohan on December 09, 2007, 11:57:49 AM
NO he clearly said it's unheard of.
It was hyberbole. Obviously people get speeding tickets in LA.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2007, 12:00:33 PM
It was hyberbole. Obviously people get speeding tickets in LA.
Nope. He wrote it out in plain english - UNHEARD OF.
He didn't say practically or rarely he was very clear and he said they do "VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC CONTROL." Which is wrong also.
I'm pretty sure you know what hyperbole means, which makes this all the more confusing...
Whatever dude. All I know is everytime he gets called out with actual facts you come to his rescue. Make a guy wonder.
What?
bing_oh writes:
Quote. . .what the hell were we talking about, again? Oh yea...you don't like speed limits. SPEED LIMITS. How, exactly, does increasing speed limits like you want "improve the human condition?"
Speed limits are but a mere symptom of the real issue: abuse of public trust for profit or political power. To be legitimate, law must be equitable and reasonable, that is, it must be based in fact and it must treat similar acts in a similar manner. I?ll address briefly two major sections of law that are emblematic of this process. Speed limits have never been a part of the uniform rule of right of way but were added later in an attempt to drive the newly invented horseless carriage out of existence because they were scaring livestock. Obviously, that failed. They have since been excused by saving tires, saving fuel, limiting drive times and therefore controlling urban sprawl, limiting air pollution, and, oh yes, beginning in the early 1950s by safety. It seems the National Safety Council was hitting some financial crisis and cooked up this scheme of ?Speed Kills!? to get more donations. Turns out, their claim was wrong but its legacy haunts us to this day.
The facts are unavoidable: speed limits do not contribute to traffic safety and, as presently set, actively undermine safety because they are set below the minimum point of the crash incidence curve.
About $100 billion a year flows from motorists to
some government agency although all the LEOs here claim they never see any of it and don?t do their job because of it. However, somewhere in the hierarchy, somebody is making that decision to generate that money and somebody keeps that money because it never comes back to the motorists.
So, we have an irrational law ? limits set irrationally, violating all kinds of scientific theory ? and we have somebody making $100 billion a year. Yet, the public gains nothing from having speed limits in place because they do not work. Not one of the posters here or anywhere else has been able to make a solid case that speed limits contribute a significant positive to public safety.
Let?s sum this up: arbitrary speed limits cost the public $100 billion a year, they contribute immeasurable contempt for that law, which morph into contempt for other laws in general, they cost an immeasurable amount in lost productivity (over $1 trillion during the lifetime of the NMSL), and they contribute nothing to elevate public safety.
This is clearly abuse of the public trust, is not equitable and is certainly not reasonable.
A similar situation arises with RLCs, a situation predicted by the theory that explains why we have traffic laws based on unfounded assumptions, bad science and a lot of greed. RLCs are installed where they will yield the greatest number of violations rather than at the most dangerous intersections. Then, frequently, the yellow light times are reduced in order to generate more violations. The number of rear-end crashes at these locations increase and the photos are taken at less than 1 second of red rather than the 4-5 seconds where T-bone crashes occur. (See Rep. Dick Armey and Texas Transportation Institute) Washington, DC, generates about $2 million a month in revenue from this, openly touted as a revenue gimmick.
Again, the public loses money, suffers more crashes, pays higher insurance rates and gains nothing. Even the dullest person can do the calculus as to the driving force behind this.
Quote"The criminals who wear the badge." Puh-leese! Yes, show me all of the criminals in LE.
Do you deny that there are cops who have been reprimanded, terminated or incarcerated because of their conduct? ?The vast majority of LEOs sincerely believe in what they are doing and that it is the best course for society,? -- these were my words. Why you want to argue something I didn?t say is a very curious situation, perhaps one that you?d like to explore.
QuoteBy the way, while I personally disagree with the idea of "professional courtesy," there's nothing corrupt about it. Have YOU ever gotten a warning for a traffic violation? Was THAT warning a form of corruption?
How disingenuous can you get? If I am given a warning it is because the LEO internalized some reason of importance to him. The reason LEOs get off with little more than a nod is
because they are cops. The distinction is critical.
QuoteEvery violation we see, we stop. Every person we stop, we cite. No excuses. No warnings. No slack. Sound good to you?
Sounds stupid to me; you?d never get out of the lot. I urge LE to do that however, because it would upset so many people that reform would begin the next day. To coin a phrase, you can piss off the goose that laid the golden egg so much until it says ?No more!?
QuoteI don't have a Captain. We don't have a "PR guy. . . So, once again, your obtuse world of political corruption and vast government/insurance conspiracy theories falls apart. Oops.
So, I guess that I just imagined those dozen or so ?legislative affairs officers? for the Texas DPS in Austin or those police captains and chiefs who sat in the California Assembly in Sacramento, telling them of the carnage that would ensue if NMSL were rescinded.
I ask you, if a legislator supports a bill that actively harms the public but which financially helps somebody who donated that legislator a bunch of money, is that not corruption? I believe it is and I believe we should root it out. You?re the one to bring up the ?government/insurance conspiracy.? It is not a conspiracy and doesn?t have to be to operate for their mutual benefit, even if the public is harmed. Once again, you overstate my case.
QuoteGuess we disagree with about everything tonight. I dont' see much reason in anything you advocate.
Actually, no, you can speak with impunity (and frequently do, from what I've seen). There's no expectation that waht you say is accurate or true.
Actually, I don?t want you to believe me. I want you to discover it for yourself. Do the research to find out how effective speed limits are vis-?-vis public safety. You won?t do it, of course, because you?re unable to challenge your own beliefs. Just think how stressful it would be when you learn that you?ve been lied to almost all your life.
If you think I?m wrong, prove it. Not with stupid anecdotes or hounddog?s puerile comments, but with real science and verifiable facts. I?ll be away for a couple of weeks so you have plenty of time to build up a solid paper. Be sure to cite your references.
Quote from: rohan on December 09, 2007, 11:49:47 AM
Once again you are full of shit.
Wow, I guess all those PR and rah-rah sites proved me wrong.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2007, 11:54:25 AM
To be fair, I think he's saying that traffic isn't as big of a concern as other crimes. Not that they never do traffic enforcement.
It's probably true of any large city. I can get away with driving a lot faster in Phoenix or Denver than I can in my hometown.
That's fair. The whole point was that LAPD is severely undermanned so they don't waste a lot of time and resources on traffic AND despite that their diminished effort has had no effect on fatality rates at all. I've driven in LA off and on for 20 years and have never been stopped.
Ugh. I started this thread to lighten things up a little bit. James, can you just be happy that the homeless guy living in the NYPD car won't give you a ticket?
:hammerhead:
JY: I have to disagree with you somewhat about the traffic enforcement in LA. Although not prevalent, it's entirely possible to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I got 2 speeding tickets during the 2 years I drove in L.A. Both during the wee hours in the morning, and both on streets with artificially low speed limits, to the point that it's utterly ridiculous (Howard Hughes Blvd right after the 405 offramp, and Redondo Beach Blvd alongside El Camino College). And there is at least one infamous speed trap that I can remember (San Vicente Blvd in Brentwood), so I just wanted to clarify that L.A. isn't as traffic-enforcement-free as you may have made it sound.