Traffic Tickets - Maybe it is All About Revenue

[velomoto]

The overriding issue isn't about whether you care about revenue, but whether the system is designed around revenue.

Interesting perspective - I hadn't thot of it in terms of "the system". I had thot of the LEO's and their boss(es) who give them direction (orders?) on what to do...

 

In any case I've seen several LEO's refute the assertion that tickets are about pulling in Revenue, yet there seems to be a good number of folks who despite having no facts nor any testimonial seem to believe the opposite. While I could certainly believe there are, or may have been instances of towns using speed traps to raise revenue, there simply is no evidence to indicate this is a general practice and more specific there is nothing to indicate this is the case in Denver. The officers were given a quota to meet - just like my employer may give quota's for work to be done.

 

Sure, we can bicker endlessly over kenetic energy and safe/unsafe riders/drives on the highways but this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not tickets are used to raise revenue. Or to put it more simply - show me a mayor or city council which has come out with a policy of using tickets to finance their city or town.

 

Certainly there are MANY things which could be done to make the roads safer, but alas most involve some sort of punishment and the simplest method seems to be a ticket.

[steve.foote]

Or to put it more simply - show me a mayor or city council which has come out with a policy of using tickets to finance their city or town.

 

My God! I cannot believe we are still here.

 

New law eliminates speed trap restrictions.

 

Texas: Warrant Servers Busy Running Speed Traps.

 

Speed trap bill advances in Tennessee.

 

Speed traps 'a money-making tool'.

 

And, read this next one very, very carefully.

 

California Legislators to Consider Embracing Speed Traps.

 

Current law allows underposted speed limits but prohibits the use of radar for ticketing on such roads. Early versions of Corbett's measure simply repealed the prohibition. The latest bill maintains the appearance of fairness by accepting the issuance of speeding tickets where speed limits are set too low only if a police officer claims the speed was "unreasonable." The result of the change would still be increased statewide revenue from citations.

 

"This bill would increase the number of speeding cases subject to prosecution," the California Legislative Counsel's bill summary explains.

 

I could go on and on and on. These were news articles from yesterday and today, found with a simple Google search using keywords "Speed Traps."

 

Come on, man! Wake up and smell the money!

[steve.foote]

Here, here's another one:

 

Small cities taking advantage of tourists.

 

Across the state, many cities have incorporated along or annexed parts of Tennessee's interstates.

 

Most of them are small cities that run on tight budgets supported by scarce funds. A few of these small cities have chosen to include or annex only enough of the interstate to have a small portion within its limits. This is often done so the city can use its police department to write speeding tickets to travelers on the interstate to raise revenue. A typical speeding fine is $50, but the court costs for the ticket can run to almost $100. Over three-quarters of this money goes directly to city coffers.

[steve.foote]

And, again:

 

Texas House Votes to Ban Speed Cameras.

 

This one will blow you away.

 

The Texas state House of Representatives today approved legislation banning speed cameras. State Representative Vicki Truitt (R-Southlake) introduced the measure to combat the cities of Marble Falls and Rhome which have begun using automated speed traps without the legislature's authorization.

 

The financially strapped Nestor Inc. operates the programs in both cities. Motorists photographed while passing through Rhome on US 287 pay a $179 minimum ticket (an extra $4 is added for each MPH over the limit after 10 MPH). Motorists in State Highway 114 "construction" zones pay a $358 minimum ticket. Marble Falls charges $100 to motorists traveling on Highway 281 and RM1431. Tickets in both cities carry license demerit points against the owner of the photographed vehicle, regardless of whether he was driving or not.

 

Nestor pockets a $25 per-ticket bounty for every ticket it is able to issue, which is vital to the company's efforts to boost profits and avoid delisting from the Nasdaq stock exchange.

 

Sheesh! How do I get on that gravy train?

[Deans BMW]

 

I'll repeat it AGAIN, the speed limits are set for the most idiotic drivers (diverse group). When we have a special tool that can help us differentiate them from the good ones I'll be glad to let go of the speed limits.

 

Maybe some type of scarlet letter? A giant "I" for idiot?

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

 

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

 

That represents my argument 110%

[BailyD]

 

I'll repeat it AGAIN, the speed limits are set for the most idiotic drivers (diverse group). When we have a special tool that can help us differentiate them from the good ones I'll be glad to let go of the speed limits.

 

Maybe some type of scarlet letter? A giant "I" for idiot?

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

 

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

 

That represents my argument 110%

 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Do you believe that common sense is not being applied? Some mentioned they thought that a speed which feels good for them is adequate. How should I know what's good for them?

 

At what speed should I give a summons or let the guy go? 5,10,15,20 mph above the limit. Should these numbers be reduced when it's dark, raining, high crash area, lots of pedestrians? I have a novel idea, how about the drivers use some of good old common sense and accept responsibility for their actions!

 

Should I have to explain that the roads are more slippery when wet? Do I have to explain that I know this is a high crash area and/or there are other people walking, riding bikes or crossing at dangerous intersections?

 

Should I be responsible to prove in court that the driver I stopped had knowledge of all of the facets mentioned above? "Your Honor, my client didn't know that 15 people were killed on that road last year and if he had he surely would have used his judgement and slowed down to the posted speed limit". Case dismissed, the officer didn't prove that a letter was sent to every driver regarding the road conditions at that time.

 

That's why we have signs with white backing and black letters.

 

Common sense? I use it all the time. Do you truly believe cops are out there writing tickets for 5 mph above the speed limit? A great majority of the driver's stopped for speeding are doing 15+ above. We do not have the time or manpower to stop every car going 5-10 above, so you try and get the fastest.

 

In the end my only argument is that we don't do it for the money.

[motorman587]

 

I'll repeat it AGAIN, the speed limits are set for the most idiotic drivers (diverse group). When we have a special tool that can help us differentiate them from the good ones I'll be glad to let go of the speed limits.

 

Maybe some type of scarlet letter? A giant "I" for idiot?

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

 

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

 

That represents my argument 110%

 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Do you believe that common sense is not being applied? Some mentioned they thought that a speed which feels good for them is adequate. How should I know what's good for them?

 

At what speed should I give a summons or let the guy go? 5,10,15,20 mph above the limit. Should these numbers be reduced when it's dark, raining, high crash area, lots of pedestrians? I have a novel idea, how about the drivers use some of good old common sense and accept responsibility for their actions!

 

Should I have to explain that the roads are more slippery when wet? Do I have to explain that I know this is a high crash area and/or there are other people walking, riding bikes or crossing at dangerous intersections?

 

Should I be responsible to prove in court that the driver I stopped had knowledge of all of the facets mentioned above? "Your Honor, my client didn't know that 15 people were killed on that road last year and if he had he surely would have used his judgement and slowed down to the posted speed limit". Case dismissed, the officer didn't prove that a letter was sent to every driver regarding the road conditions at that time.

 

That's why we have signs with white backing and black letters.

 

Common sense? I use it all the time. Do you truly believe cops are out there writing tickets for 5 mph above the speed limit? A great majority of the driver's stopped for speeding are doing 15+ above. We do not have the time or manpower to stop every car going 5-10 above, so you try and get the fastest.

 

In the end my only argument is that we don't do it for the money.

 

I have been on this board for 4 years and this ticket thing is like the helmet thing. It comes up from time to time. I have told people on this forum that "I" do not write tickets for the city or any other goverment to make money. I too go after the fastest car. I also write tickets for redlights, lane violation or just bad driving. In fact I am logging off to go write.

[scottie_boy]

BailyD, you weren't listening! I'm not saying that we should ignore the speed limits.

If your department's true goal was safety then focus on bad drivers not speeders. I HAVE BEEN RUN OFF THE ROAD BY PEOPLE DOING THE SPEED LIMIT . Look for the construction truck that is dropping debris on the road, the person swerving because they are applying makeup while driving, etc..

I'm sure you've seen some horrible things but you don't magically have an accident because you speed. Accidents are caused by being careless. When I'm on my motorcycle I have never felt in danger because the person next to me was going a few over the speed limit but I have had to dodge ladders and people driving erratically because their mind was not on the road.

[BailyD]

Scottie,

 

Fair enough. I can and do write for a variety of other violations. Just for fun I looked our departments numbers from last year and made a comparison of our numbers to a report we just completed for causes of fatal crashes.

 

Of all of the summons' issued last year approximately 6% were for speeding. Comparing that to the two biggest causes of fatal crashes in our town, (DWI 40%, Speed 20%)

 

I acknowledge that it's easier to get a speeder than DWI. I'm in complete agreement that DWI drivers are the number 1 cause of serious/fatal crashes. No single motor vehicle violation gets more money and work hours than the detection and apprehension of DWI drivers (as it should be).

 

My numbers are somewhat different. 25% of my summons were issued for speeding. I am primarily assigned to dayshift and I am one of 3-4 officers who are specifically assigned to target speeding problems (as reported by residences and through accident/road surveys)

 

One of my points was to tie together the idea that SOME speeders are BAD drivers.

[scottie_boy]

BailyD,

 

First off let me apologize if I was rude. I respect you and the job that you have to do. That being said I sometimes get very frustrated with my local police department and their extremely aggressive traffic enforcement. They love to sit at the bottom of this one hill by my house and stop people because they sped up a litle due to the incline.

 

My last house was in a small town that had an even smaller police force. This town had housing projects that were very crime ridden yet the one or two officers on duty were always seen at the city limits sign with a radar gun in their hand.

 

If I seem angry with LEO's its because it appears that SOME police are more interested in writing citations than protecting and serving the public.

[wrestleantares]

This is a little different side of it:

 

My local police department and State Patrol office put in the paper that they would be conducting a speeding operation on a certain stretch of I-40 (It was a well-known stretch with unusually high crash/fatality rates).

 

They made it clear that they wanted to slow people up and did a good job publicizing why there was a problem.

 

I thought that was a good way to go about it. There certainly couldn't be any complaints in that instance that it was for revenue generation.

[russell_bynum]

This is a little different side of it:

 

My local police department and State Patrol office put in the paper that they would be conducting a speeding operation on a certain stretch of I-40 (It was a well-known stretch with unusually high crash/fatality rates).

 

They made it clear that they wanted to slow people up and did a good job publicizing why there was a problem.

 

I thought that was a good way to go about it. There certainly couldn't be any complaints in that instance that it was for revenue generation.

 

It depends. If they were doing the actual enforcement while highly visible, with their radar always on, etc then I'd agree.

 

If they used laser, instant-on, and/or hid in the bushes so you couldn't see them until it was too late, then they were likely targeting drivers from out of the area. (You know...the ones who aren't going to get pissed and start putting pressure on local elected officials.)

[steve.foote]

At what speed should I give a summons or let the guy go? 5,10,15,20 mph above the limit.

 

I'd suggest 50 over for me and 10 over for the rest of these guys.

[BailyD]

It's no fun getting a speeding ticket. Before I was a police officer I was stopped for speeding while riding my 1982 Suzuki Katana 1000. It had one of those 85 mph speedo's with about 1" between 10 mph increments. The Trooper passed me as some squid kid in his 1983 Camaro was catching up from behind. I was doing 58/50, the Trooper said I was going 73 mph!! I let him holler at me rather than take the ticket.

 

I won't write unless I'm sure. Sometimes we do phased enforcement.

 

1. Receive complaint and do speed survey of street to determine the times and high speeds. Sometimes there isn't a problem.

 

2. Place speed sign/trailer giving visual warning of your speeding (approximately 3-4 weeks)

 

3. Operate radar in area and stop cars w/ warnings or sometimes tickets.

 

4. Issue summons in area down river of speed sign/trailer as vehicles speed past. Their warning was the sign.

 

We try and keep with this when we can. An area gets "fished out" and the complainants are happy to see us. Given time, the speeding will start again. It will never go away, nor will every speeder get stopped.

[GoGo Gadget]

But you didn't argue Delta V, you argued Energy.

 

Without the Delta V, there is no energy transferance. Two objects traveling in the same direction at the same speed pose no danfer to one another.

 

Using that argument, a 4500lbs SUV has the same energy at ~48mph as a 600lbs motorcycle/rider does at 130mph.

 

Same potential energy, but less danger due to slower speed.

 

A 100,000lb vehicle at 10mph has 330,000 ft/lbs of energy. But I think most people over 4 and below 90 years in age would be able to safely avoid that danger. Back to that whole reaction time thing.

 

 

Don't feel bad about the equation thing, I cheated and used an online calculator. I could not remember how to get the mass part either.

[GoGo Gadget]

If they used laser, instant-on, and/or hid in the bushes so you couldn't see them until it was too late, then they were likely targeting drivers from out of the area. (You know...the ones who aren't going to get pissed and start putting pressure on local elected officials.)

 

 

 

Good lord, how moronic.

 

Ever run Lidar or Radar? Moving or stationary? Go buy a rangefinder and shoot it at a vehicle 2,000ft away. Let me know if that guy is from out of town or not. I must have missed that class at the academy.

 

 

What is your job by the way?

[GoGo Gadget]

and the complainants are happy to see us.

 

Ever pulled one over and had them inform you that they were the ones who called to complain?

[russell_bynum]

If they used laser, instant-on, and/or hid in the bushes so you couldn't see them until it was too late, then they were likely targeting drivers from out of the area. (You know...the ones who aren't going to get pissed and start putting pressure on local elected officials.)

 

 

 

Good lord, how moronic.

 

Ever run Lidar or Radar? Moving or stationary? Go buy a rangefinder and shoot it at a vehicle 2,000ft away. Let me know if that guy is from out of town or not. I must have missed that class at the academy.

 

 

What is your job by the way?

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that the LEO's at the roadside were picking out people from out of town intentionally by spotting car dealer license plate frames, rival town's HighSchool football team bumper stickers, or something like that.

 

What I meant was...if they advertised what they were doing in advance, that'll let the locals know what's going on. Any local who still speeds in that area is stupid.

 

If they also used non-sneaky means of enforcement, then that gives out-of-towners a fighting chance as well. And it even works to slow down the people who don't actually get a ticket since they see the big black and white cruiser sitting on the side of the road, and pick up the radar well in advance, if they've got a detector.

 

If, on the other hand, they advertise what they're going to be doing, then hide in the bushes, use instant-on, etc then the people who get nailed are either stupid locals, or people from out of town.

 

Right?

 

Basically...my contention is that stealthy means of enforcement like hiding in the bushes, and/or using difficult to detect laser or instant-on radar would not do a very good job of slowing people down since you are basically invisible until you're actually writing the ticket. So that one person gets a ticket, but most everyone else doesn't even know you're there.

 

If you sit there really visible, keep the radar on all the time (so detectors pick it up), use those big visible "your speed is" signs, etc...that sort of thing seems like it would have a much better deterrent effect on the public.

 

If that theory holds true, then using stealthy methods of enforcement must not be intended to change behavior, but rather to collect revenue.

 

How is my occupation relevant to this discussion? (I'm a computer nerd, btw.)

[GoGo Gadget]

I wasn't trying to suggest that the LEO's at the roadside were picking out people from out of town intentionally by spotting car dealer license plate frames, rival town's HighSchool football team bumper stickers, or something like that.

 

Ok, I apologize. I have had people make that assertion in the past, and it truly is moronic. Or maybe ignorant is a better word. Much like the profiling argument. I usually do not know the color of the driver until I walk up to the car.

 

 

 

 

If that theory holds true, then using stealthy methods of enforcement must not be intended to change behavior, but rather to collect revenue.

 

The theory does not hold water. You have to get people to obey the law all the time, not just when in sight of a patrol car. People will obey the law for one of two reasons. Either they intrinsically feel it is the right and proper thing to do, best course of action for society overall kind of thing, or they fear punishment.

 

For the first type, we do not need any enforcement action. They are generally law abiding and drive well. They may make mistakes from time to time, but who doesn't? This type will respond well to a warning. Getting caught making a mistake is a wake up call and that is all it takes. If the officers gives them a ticket instead of a warning, it will have little adverse effect since it is a single ticket. One ticket will not bankrupt anyone.

 

The second type will only obey the laws while they fear repercussions of their actions. If they are confident that they will not get punished, or not caught at all, then they will flaunt the responsibility they have to drive safely on the public roadways. So openly sitting in plain view will have those types slow down when approaching the visible officer, then speed up even more to make up lost time when they pass the officer. I see it all the time. My car is not a Crown Vic, so it does not register as a LE vehicle. I will be behind people and they do not realize it. I'll see them slow down for an officer they see driving the other way, or sitting at a light. After they are 1/2 a block past them, they will speed up, often to a faster speed than before. Almost like the thought process is that they just saw a cop, so they are probably safe for awhile before seeing another one.

 

 

It is logistically impossible to place a visible cop every two blocks to keep people obeying the law. So you have to pick and choose enforcement methods.

[velomoto]

This one will blow you away.

 

The financially strapped Nestor Inc. operates the programs in both cities....

Nestor pockets a $25 per-ticket bounty for every ticket it is able to issue, which is vital to the company's efforts to boost profits and avoid delisting from the Nasdaq stock exchange.

 

Sheesh! How do I get on that gravy train?

Ummm the short answer is you can buy stock in the company. Other options? Develop a money losing business plan and find investors to get you started. Nestor seems to be riding quite a "gravy train" - last traded at $0.55 with a 52 week high of $3.63. Talk about a buying opportunity!!!

[Dave McReynolds]

The theory does not hold water. You have to get people to obey the law all the time, not just when in sight of a patrol car. People will obey the law for one of two reasons. Either they intrinsically feel it is the right and proper thing to do, best course of action for society overall kind of thing, or they fear punishment.

 

For the first type, we do not need any enforcement action. They are generally law abiding and drive well. They may make mistakes from time to time, but who doesn't? This type will respond well to a warning. Getting caught making a mistake is a wake up call and that is all it takes. If the officers gives them a ticket instead of a warning, it will have little adverse effect since it is a single ticket. One ticket will not bankrupt anyone.

 

If you want people to obey the law all the time, you have to try to get most of the people to be in group #1. Otherwise, you have a situation like prohibition, where otherwise law abiding people thumb their collective noses at a law they don't agree with, to the detriment of all laws, everywhere. When group #2 reaches a critical mass, law enforcement is no longer effective, and at most, puts on a show. Another example is our income tax law, where we had about 98% compliance 30 years ago when I first started in the business. Now, compliance is down to about 75%, so collection of income taxes depends mainly on reporting at the source through W-2's and 1099's, rather than people voluntarily filing accurate tax returns.

 

Every part of the culture plays a part in getting people to be in group #1: parents, school, peer groups, legislative bodies, and law enforcement. A strong counter-cultural movement in any one of the groups can move people out of group #1 into group #2.

 

For example, you say "Getting caught making a mistake is a wake up call and that is all it takes. If the officers gives them a ticket instead of a warning, it will have little adverse effect since it is a single ticket. One ticket will not bankrupt anyone." Give a ticket rather than a warning to a housewife who has tried all her life to obey laws, but gets distracted one day and speeds, and she might think, "That's the thanks I get for trying to obey the traffic laws all my life?" And while it probably won't make her into a hardened criminal, she may well bitch about it in front of her kids, who will then inherit her resentment. Give her a warning and she might think, "THANKS for the warning, since I've tried to obey the traffic laws all my life!"

 

Effectively leading the public, whether legislatively or in enforcement, basically comes down to figuring out which way they're going and helping them get there. Frankly, on the issue we're discussing, speeding, we on this board are probably out of the mainstream of drivers, who probably feel that speed limits are fine the way they are and should be enforced, perhaps with a little leeway. But NO group of drivers would be in favor of enforcing traffic laws as a hidden tax, and whether you're actually doing that or not, you have to avoid the APPEARANCE of doing it or risk suffering the alienation of the main group you're trying to protect.

[steve.foote]

This one will blow you away.

 

The financially strapped Nestor Inc. operates the programs in both cities....

Nestor pockets a $25 per-ticket bounty for every ticket it is able to issue, which is vital to the company's efforts to boost profits and avoid delisting from the Nasdaq stock exchange.

 

Sheesh! How do I get on that gravy train?

Ummm the short answer is you can buy stock in the company. Other options? Develop a money losing business plan and find investors to get you started. Nestor seems to be riding quite a "gravy train" - last traded at $0.55 with a 52 week high of $3.63. Talk about a buying opportunity!!!

 

Another typical diversion tactic. You seem to have an endless capacity to debate, yet drive towards nothing meaningful.

 

Are you a member of congress?

[russell_bynum]

The second type will only obey the laws while they fear repercussions of their actions. If they are confident that they will not get punished, or not caught at all, then they will flaunt the responsibility they have to drive safely on the public roadways. So openly sitting in plain view will have those types slow down when approaching the visible officer, then speed up even more to make up lost time when they pass the officer. I see it all the time. My car is not a Crown Vic, so it does not register as a LE vehicle. I will be behind people and they do not realize it. I'll see them slow down for an officer they see driving the other way, or sitting at a light. After they are 1/2 a block past them, they will speed up, often to a faster speed than before. Almost like the thought process is that they just saw a cop, so they are probably safe for awhile before seeing another one.

 

That's me. Except I don't speed up to faster than I was going before. And I'm not openly flaunting my responsibility to drive safely. That's where these conversations seem to break down. Exceeding the speed limit does not automatically equate to being unsafe. My number 1 priority is getting to my destination intact. Speed limits are designed for the lowest common denominator. When I'm in my truck...I'm pretty close to the speed limit most of the time because I figure I'm not too far from that lowest common denominator. When I'm on a motorcycle or driving a more performance-oriented car, I'm often capable of going considerably faster than the limit. (Depending on the road/traffic/etc conditions, of course.)

 

For me, it's mostly about probability. I keep my eyes open and stay alert so I'm not likely to get tagged unless they are using sneaky enforcement methods. I don't generally use my radar detector unless I'm planning on exceeding the limit by a big margin (like at Torrey).

 

For me anyway...the sneaky enforcement methods don't work unless you've got enough Cops/speed cameras, etc to dramatically increase the probability of getting caught. The obvious methods of enforcement do work (to a degree). I'll slow down and play by the rules in the area that you're enforcing. So...at least you got me to go the speed limit in the area you're trying to control.

 

In a nutshell: I go whatever speed I feel is appropriate...unless I believe enforcement is likely...then I go whatever speed some politician thousands of miles away (who probably has never even SEEN the road that I'm on) thinks is appropriate.

[motorman587]

The second type will only obey the laws while they fear repercussions of their actions. If they are confident that they will not get punished, or not caught at all, then they will flaunt the responsibility they have to drive safely on the public roadways. So openly sitting in plain view will have those types slow down when approaching the visible officer, then speed up even more to make up lost time when they pass the officer. I see it all the time. My car is not a Crown Vic, so it does not register as a LE vehicle. I will be behind people and they do not realize it. I'll see them slow down for an officer they see driving the other way, or sitting at a light. After they are 1/2 a block past them, they will speed up, often to a faster speed than before. Almost like the thought process is that they just saw a cop, so they are probably safe for awhile before seeing another one.

 

That's me. Except I don't speed up to faster than I was going before. And I'm not openly flaunting my responsibility to drive safely. That's where these conversations seem to break down. Exceeding the speed limit does not automatically equate to being unsafe. My number 1 priority is getting to my destination intact. Speed limits are designed for the lowest common denominator. When I'm in my truck...I'm pretty close to the speed limit most of the time because I figure I'm not too far from that lowest common denominator. When I'm on a motorcycle or driving a more performance-oriented car, I'm often capable of going considerably faster than the limit. (Depending on the road/traffic/etc conditions, of course.)

 

For me, it's mostly about probability. I keep my eyes open and stay alert so I'm not likely to get tagged unless they are using sneaky enforcement methods. I don't generally use my radar detector unless I'm planning on exceeding the limit by a big margin (like at Torrey).

 

For me anyway...the sneaky enforcement methods don't work unless you've got enough Cops/speed cameras, etc to dramatically increase the probability of getting caught. The obvious methods of enforcement do work (to a degree). I'll slow down and play by the rules in the area that you're enforcing. So...at least you got me to go the speed limit in the area you're trying to control.

 

In a nutshell: I go whatever speed I feel is appropriate...unless I believe enforcement is likely...then I go whatever speed some politician thousands of miles away (who probably has never even SEEN the road that I'm on) thinks is appropriate.

 

 

I am just dumb o' cop, but I do not think I would brag how I speed etc........ and make up own laws. This is one of those, I do think it should be posted. What happens if you wack yourself next week and this post happens to go to your insurance company or the traffic homicide investigator etc............ It is ok to not like the posted speed limit, but to brag about it on open forum, na not for me. Just my $.o2 worth.

[motorman587]

BTW I have a couple of motor cop friends all over the country and when I read this:

"I don't generally use my radar detector unless I'm planning on exceeding the limit by a big margin (like at Torrey)."

 

I had to call and give them heads up. You gave the dates, the area and the intent to speed. I just had to the right thing.

[casticus]

Now that is just evil....sounds like something I should have thought of

[Schupo]

My city has a noise-ordinance. If a person plays loud music and their neighbor complains, the responding officer can issue a $250 infraction. The next time the fine goes up to $500. Obviously this is not a quality-of-life issue at all. Everyone should determine their own volume according to how they feel at the moment. The city fathers just want more money. It's all about revenue. (Sorry for the temporary hijack.)

[motorman587]

My city has a noise-ordinance. If a person plays loud music and their neighbor complains, the responding officer can issue a $250 infraction. The next time the fine goes up to $500. Obviously this is not a quality-of-life issue at all. Everyone should determine their own volume according to how they feel at the moment. The city fathers just want more money. It's all about revenue. (Sorry for the temporary hijack.)

 

Remeber that nexts time your neighbor wakes ya or your at the red light and the guy got the bass up it rattles your car. You guys crack me up!!!! Your like the people I pull over.

[Deans BMW]

John, if in fact you did what you claimed you did several posts above then I am extremely disapointed, I think you are in fact stiring the pot for fun, if however on the other hand you did indeed what you claimed, then your Meglomania is definitely showing.

[velomoto]

Sheesh! How do I get on that gravy train?

Ummm the short answer is you can buy stock in the company. Other options? Develop a money losing business plan and find investors to get you started. Nestor seems to be riding quite a "gravy train" - last traded at $0.55 with a 52 week high of $3.63. Talk about a buying opportunity!!!

Another typical diversion tactic. You seem to have an endless capacity to debate, yet drive towards nothing meaningful.

 

Are you a member of congress?

My apology - no intention to debate, just admiring the logic!

[velomoto]

My God! I cannot believe we are still here.

New law eliminates speed trap restrictions.

Texas: Warrant Servers Busy Running Speed Traps.

Speed trap bill advances in Tennessee.

Speed traps 'a money-making tool'.

And, read this next one very, very carefully.

California Legislators to Consider Embracing Speed Traps.

Current law allows underposted speed limits but prohibits the use of radar for ticketing on such roads. Early versions of Corbett's measure simply repealed the prohibition. The latest bill maintains the appearance of fairness by accepting the issuance of speeding tickets where speed limits are set too low only if a police officer claims the speed was "unreasonable." The result of the change would still be increased statewide revenue from citations.

 

"This bill would increase the number of speeding cases subject to prosecution," the California Legislative Counsel's bill summary explains.

 

I could go on and on and on. These were news articles from yesterday and today, found with a simple Google search using keywords "Speed Traps."

 

Come on, man! Wake up and smell the money!

Having finally read all these links and the later ones you posted I certainly understand where you're coming from.

 

As for the California bill which in essence sez an officer can ticket you for driving too fast for conditions, since I've lived in states which already had similar laws I never put the "it's all about the Revenue" spin on it. Yeah, it sucks to get a ticket after wrecking on an icy road - but the ticket does reinforce the message that "YOU screwed up!" From what I've been told, this is the norm for accidents in CO - if ya don't like it, then don't crash in CO!

 

Happy riding and keep the rubber side down!

[motorman587]

John, if in fact you did what you claimed you did several posts above then I am extremely disapointed, I think you are in fact stiring the pot for fun, if however on the other hand you did indeed what you claimed, then your Meglomania is definitely showing.

 

Sir, I had to report a crime. In most states it is criminal to ride/drive reckless. That is what I am sworn to do.

 

 

 

 

Hey, I need a yellow head "stirring the pot",

[Agent_Orange]

Can't we all just.............. Nah, what was I thinking?

[Schupo]

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My city has a noise-ordinance. If a person plays loud music and their neighbor complains, the responding officer can issue a $250 infraction. The next time the fine goes up to $500. Obviously this is not a quality-of-life issue at all. Everyone should determine their own volume according to how they feel at the moment. The city fathers just want more money. It's all about revenue. (Sorry for the temporary hijack.)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Remeber that nexts time your neighbor wakes ya or your at the red light and the guy got the bass up it rattles your car. You guys crack me up!!!! Your like the people I pull over.

 

------------------

 

I guess I didn't make my sarcasm clear enough for you.

[Agent_Orange]

Wait a minute. Aren't both of you?