A question..

[Fritter]

I've heard that one of the gripes from RD and Jammer users is that all traffic enforcement is is revenue generators and serve no purpose what so ever outside of that.

It has been suggested that LEO's need only activate thier radars and "everyone would slow down" and the need for issuing citations would be moot and the goal of slowing everyone down would be met.

Here is my question....

If we turn on our radars and eliminate I/O and stop issuing citations, what incentive, as drivers, do you have to slow down?


F

[tjbender]

I doubt you'll find much of that sentiment here. Revenue generators are the massive ticket factories where five over gets you a hefty fine and a court date, and no warnings are issued. Traps set up on deserted roads in the middle of nowhere also serve only to generate revenue.

The officers who sit on the side of the road in busier areas and take off after the idiots doing 90 in traffic I have a lot of respect for. The officers who'll pull you over for going 10 over in the left lane and ignore the guy doing 85 in the center lane purely because of which lane he's in (and then tell you their reasoning in grabbing you instead of him) are lazy and clearly out for some funding, not to slow anyone down.

CHP officers out here will turn their radars on when they're parked at an accident site, and leave them on full-blast. Does it slow me down? You bet your balls it does--I drop to PSL and drop even further when I see the accident. I actually have a lot of respect for that and think it's a brilliant idea--instead of seeing the accident as I'm coming around the bend 250 yards in front of it, I'm slowing down about a mile out because I'm getting a Ka hit.

As for turning off your I/O and not writing citations, please don't ever do that. While I do drive about 10-15 over the PSL, I do it safely, and I match my speed to what the traffic will allow. The numbskulls cutting in and out at 80 while traffic's going 65 are the ones I'd like to see cited more--not those of us getting nailed in multi-car ticket factories designed to take advantage of the fact that traffic flows at 10 over the PSL.

Beyond that, I enjoy the game of spotting you before you spot me. Haven't lost yet.

[Gokhos]

I've heard that one of the gripes from RD and Jammer users is that all traffic enforcement is is revenue generators and serve no purpose what so ever outside of that.

It has been suggested that LEO's need only activate thier radars and "everyone would slow down" and the need for issuing citations would be moot and the goal of slowing everyone down would be met.

Here is my question....

If we turn on our radars and eliminate I/O and stop issuing citations, what incentive, as drivers, do you have to slow down?


F

I for one don't think that ALL traffic enforcement is for revenue generation but I think that a lot of it is. In my area, I rarely see LEO in neighborhoods, some with lots of break-ins and vandalism, but they seem to do a lot of stealthy traffic enforcement on major streets and roads. It appears that traffic enforcement is a priority in our area. I can see where some would think that revenue is the priority there. If the consequences of violating traffic laws were other than fines, I personally think there would be a less enforcement. Money can be a great motivator - not that the LEOs are personally benefitting from fines but their jurisdiction might be.

Take RLC. In my area, the city has actually boasted (word selection is my opinion) of the monies generated from the program and while they mention public safety, in appears that RLC are more about revenue, in my opinion.

I don't think turning off radar or laser is the answer but I am not sure that either are totally accurate speed measurement devices nor do I think that using or not use them are necessarily great motivators for drivers in general.

I see the DPS sitting right out in the open running speed enforcement and they stop lots of drivers. Were those drivers just not paying attention or do they just don't care - I don't know.

Just my opinion.

[MadHatter]

The cops that give y'all the bad name are those who are obviously in it for the revenue (and maybe the yuks...who knows).

Like the polite Texas SP officer who gave the "Texas pass-through" ticket to the newly graduated young man in the older-model Honda hatchback who was simply passing through on the way to his first job, on a sunny day in moderate traffic on the interstate, at PSL. Wasn't speeding, knew exactly where the cop was, saw him flip-flop and take his time slowly weaving through the traffic until he came up behind the little car with the out-of-state plates (several states away). It was all pretense, and he knew the young man wouldn't be coming back to contest in court (and had no witnesses, as he was driving alone). Does that create respect - or enhance the public safety? He had the badge, the car with the lights, and the power, and he could do what he wanted. Nobody thinks this doesn't happen all the time.

Or the zillions of times we've watched marked or unmarked cars speeding, weaving between lanes, tailgaiting civilians to get them to move over (all this without lights, BTW), not using turn signals, and all the other moves that they'd stop us for in a moment, in the name of "public safety".

OTOH, there are a great many who do good works in the name of public safety, and are honorable and good people. I, and we, thank them for their hard work and honesty.

As to the others - wonder why we want to know where you are and what you're doing?

MH

[supercowpowers]

If we turn on our radars and eliminate I/O and stop issuing citations, what incentive, as drivers, do you have to slow down?

Absolutely none, and this is a point that I think is lost on a lot of people. If you're being sincere when you tell us that you're mostly interested in compliance, then you're correct to be sneaky. Many of us, if we don't have a rabbit, won't run faster than we'd want to be caught for over hundreds of miles just because of the threat of one officer ruining our day. You don't even have to be there, but because we're afraid of you we comply... at least to a degree that won't get us in trouble.

However, you have to accept that those tactics will be perceived by a lot of people as revenue-oriented because they've heard so many stories about "performance goals" and politicians calling upon their police forces to help balance the municipal budget. An officer interested in catching as many violators as possible would use the same sneaky tactics that are designed to ensure compliance, so can you blame them for not knowing what your intentions are?

I think I read that one of your favorite enforcement spots is before a dangerous intersection. That's a good thing, but many of us have been tagged on controlled access highways with no interchanges for miles, and it's hard not to think about that when forming an opinion of any sort of enforcement.

[Edwv30]

I doubt you'll find much of that sentiment here. Revenue generators are the massive ticket factories where five over gets you a hefty fine and a court date, and no warnings are issued. Traps set up on deserted roads in the middle of nowhere also serve only to generate revenue.

The officers who sit on the side of the road in busier areas and take off after the idiots doing 90 in traffic I have a lot of respect for. The officers who'll pull you over for going 10 over in the left lane and ignore the guy doing 85 in the center lane purely because of which lane he's in (and then tell you their reasoning in grabbing you instead of him) are lazy and clearly out for some funding, not to slow anyone down.

CHP officers out here will turn their radars on when they're parked at an accident site, and leave them on full-blast. Does it slow me down? You bet your balls it does--I drop to PSL and drop even further when I see the accident. I actually have a lot of respect for that and think it's a brilliant idea--instead of seeing the accident as I'm coming around the bend 250 yards in front of it, I'm slowing down about a mile out because I'm getting a Ka hit.

As for turning off your I/O and not writing citations, please don't ever do that. While I do drive about 10-15 over the PSL, I do it safely, and I match my speed to what the traffic will allow. The numbskulls cutting in and out at 80 while traffic's going 65 are the ones I'd like to see cited more--not those of us getting nailed in multi-car ticket factories designed to take advantage of the fact that traffic flows at 10 over the PSL.

Beyond that, I enjoy the game of spotting you before you spot me. Haven't lost yet.

X2. You are a police officer and are doing your job. I wouldn't expect any less.

I see idiots on the highway every day swerving in and out of heavily congested traffic at 20+ the PSL. They are endangering everyone's safety and I can only hope that they will get busted and their license pulled. If they don't respect the life\safety of others they shouldn't be on the road.

I normally go 10-15 over the PSL and with the flow of traffic. I have been pulled over before in this situation but was given a warning...twice. Would I have been upset if I got a ticket when evryone else was travelling the same rate of speed? Yes. Would I have deserved the ticket? Absolutely...I was still, knowingly, breaking the law.

I have my counter measures...if you bust me I lost the game. Fortunately, I have been on a winning streak.

[AirMoore]

I've heard that one of the gripes from RD and Jammer users is that all traffic enforcement is is revenue generators and serve no purpose what so ever outside of that.

It has been suggested that LEO's need only activate thier radars and "everyone would slow down" and the need for issuing citations would be moot and the goal of slowing everyone down would be met.

Here is my question....

If we turn on our radars and eliminate I/O and stop issuing citations, what incentive, as drivers, do you have to slow down?


F

Not very many are saying: stop issuing citations (I Certainly am not, thus leaching out the degradation paradox)... only that C/O and or, extremely visible and open enforcement would be truly effective at slowing down people for longer durations.

As I state it (not that citations should not be issued, but rather sneaky tactics shouldn't be used) the question is bounced back to you, what (independent 3rd-party proof) do you have that giving tickets is an incentive in slowing people down anyways (After issuance)?


In other words... you catch someone going 65 in a 55mph zone with I/O, write them a ticket, (the only time they slowed down on that road was when you lit them up, because of your sneaky tactics they were unaware of you, and as thus: up to that point they were speeding)... you would then have to prove that for X amount of time after... they have slowed down (on ALL roads... not just a particular road).

How then can you prove that the citation has slowed them down at all... likely after you issue it they will not only continue to speed, but speed even more-so out of anger/resentment and further, you just made them an extra 15-minutes late to their engagement, with a lighter pocketbook. How is enforcement people don't know about going to slow them down?


Furthermore, have you ever been driving and seen a sea of 'red' ahead of you as people ahead of you on the interstate slam all over their brakes to avoid the possible citation from a very sneaky LEO? This doesn't seem like a very safe tactic to me too boot... just in that sense.


So it is not the citation that is the problem, but its style of implementation.

[CJR238]

I've heard that one of the gripes from RD and Jammer users is that all traffic enforcement is is revenue generators and serve no purpose what so ever outside of that.

It has been suggested that LEO's need only activate thier radars and "everyone would slow down" and the need for issuing citations would be moot and the goal of slowing everyone down would be met.

Here is my question....

If we turn on our radars and eliminate I/O and stop issuing citations, what incentive, as drivers, do you have to slow down?


F

You wouldn't stop issuing citations, tickets would still be given to the oblivious and reckless drivers (the ones who deserve it most)

[supercowpowers]

I'm going to put my tail between my legs and admit that the surprise tactics work for me. Due to our wonderful point system I really can't deal with another ticket, so on 65 MPH highways I've stopped going over 80 MPH in daylight and 75 at night without a rabbit. That's on my speedometer, which I know is about 5% fast, so that keeps me a little safer and compensates for any error on the officer's radar. Of course I still slow down for the known hiding spots so I'm not constantly testing their tolerance.

If I were sure they only used CO, I'd be going... faster than that...

[Motor On]

Traffic has 3 components, engineering, education and enforcement.

I've heard that one of the gripes from RD and Jammer users is that all traffic enforcement is is revenue generators and serve no purpose what so ever outside of that.

Many engineering measures lead toward this interpretation. I think it's the speed limits that are set under the 85th percentile (often arbitrarily set), city officials budgeting for ticket revenue, officals setting up red light cameras when studies show an increase in accidents, set yellow lights to shorter that legal times, illegally pursue contracts for cameras, etc. In the UK for example they legalized speed cameras for "driving safety" not one went up where there had been a fatal accident within 10 years, and revenue was spectacular; they also have variable speed limits based on traffic conditions, lower the speed limits without proper traffic increases to increase revenue from the traffic cameras.

It has been suggested that LEO's need only activate thier radars and "everyone would slow down" and the need for issuing citations would be moot and the goal of slowing everyone down would be met.

Enforcement also sets the tone. The concept here is that if there's high visibility enforcement, with the radar on so everyone with a detector is slowing, the enforcement is targeted to dangerous areas (high accident intersections, school zones, near parks, dangerous corners and other areas road engineering fails) If you want folks to slow down in an area make it clear you want them to slow, be obvious about it. People see someone pulled over on the side of the road the slow down, people see a car sitting in the median they slow down; many times even if they're already doing the limit.

To be sneaky about enforcement implies your motives are less than honorable, it may not actually be the case but that's what it implies. If you saw someone pull out of the bar in their pickup and cruise by at 10 under to make sure he wasn't speeding, would you not start looking for other signs of potential DUI? Attempts to hide your actions set off mental triggers that something isn't right.

Also lane usage, seat belts, turn signals, actually stopping for stop signs and red lights, dimming high beams in traffic, affixing bumpers with more than duct tape, getting folks to put down the newspaper while eating their yogurt and driving are all more or equally dangerous activities while driving, however there is no commercial industry to detect when someone is so engrossed in digging for the CD they just dropped that they've crossed the double yellow for the past 1/4 mile.

Also it needs to be a top down mentallity change, I know departments where guys only know how to write speeding and registration tickets without having to go look up the code in their book, which means 99% of the time they wont bother and just warn instead of cite. Why is that because the Sgt. gets pressure from the Lt. to see X # of speeding and reg cites per month, those are also incidentally the only two remotely common non DUI traffic infractions in that state where the fine is excess of $150 for the infraction. Oh and those are the infractions that get you more points for activity that help more with promotions and "officer of the month" recognitions too

Here is my question....

If we turn on our radars and eliminate I/O and stop issuing citations, what incentive, as drivers, do you have to slow down?


F

If you run C/O slow down traffic around us, slow us down when we're around you, continue to issue citations, but dump the points system and the multi-thousand and multi-hundreds of dollars in fines, require traffic school in increasing # of hours to be completed in person and educate the masses on traffic safety in the same capacity officers are educated about traffic safety, here's the details of the anatomy of organ crushing in this type of impact, here's photos of this accident scene and how the accident occurred, here's how many of these accidents happen in the county and where (there's a great map at an area rest stop showing damage only injury fatal and car vs deer accidents, cant be found on their website or any pamphlet to take with you) make it so people understand the risks and keep it in line with self preservation, and if they don't at least the sane ones will hopefully be kind enough to only take themselves out, and they're wallet will be a little lighter, which can ad up enough to get someone to put their phone down.

But right now there's states that dont allow traffic school add up points, not for more severe penalties with the state but for insurance companies to raise premiums, for the 4 point ticket. I live on the edge of a suburban area and near many small rural towns where a few have a reputation for the following scenario. The 1-5 officer (all part timers) town hid behind the cemetery on the county highway and I/Oed someone in the rear at 5 over as he left the build up of town but was 100ft short f the 55 sign and started to accelerate from 25 before he got to it, the town limits aren't for another 1/2mi. If the officer sits there all weekend every weekend in his 20hrs per week and gets enough of these tickets written he qualifies for a grant to get a new V8 charger to bounce around town in and a new LIDAR gun, all grant money from Feds and insurance companies based on # of tickets written and not lowest accident and highway fatality rates per capita. Right now it's an economic cycle in some areas that, IMO, makes a mockery of the officers out there that actually do give a d*** about making peoples lives safer.

Now if you engineer the roads to be in better shape, safer corners, better traffic controls, educate people extensively and raise the bar for new driver testing, then openly and visibly enforce the high risk areas (and take it beyond speeding for all the other dumb actions drivers take), and if a citation is issued require further in depth training, and continually re-assess the engineering to reduce the quantity of high risk areas; you would ultimately see safer traffic flow, possibly slower in many areas, and certainly fewer complaints about how it's a financially driven cycle.