Link to Locate Speed Traps

Spike wrote:
> From a retired cop point of view....
>
> There are legitimate locations which many call speed traps. Those are
> places where there is a high accident rate, high spped violation rate,
> etc. Enforcement is supposed to be "selective", however, if the rate
> of incidence is high enough, that enforcement becomes nearly
> permanent.
>
> A "speed trap" is defined as law enforcement doing things like hiding
> in the bushes where a motorist would be too late in observation to
> reduce speed or whatever to avoid being caught.
>
> Patrols are supposed to be in plain sight "to the observant motorist".
> At night, parking lights should be on. Visibility (including the use
> of "fake" patrol vehicles) is a psychological deterant, in the same
> way K-9s are psychological deterrants, as well as trackers, etc. If I
> recall correctly, these "rules" have come out of court cases, some of
> which reached the Supreme Court (when it was a bit more left leaning).
> Some places I worked, if you got caught breaking the rules, you paid
> the price (unpaid leave, garbage details, etc).
>
> I am not so dumb as to say cops don't ever violate the rules, and in
> some areas they are supported in violating the rules. However, my
> experience is that most cops do follow the rules.There are more than
> enough violators on the roads to keep any cop busy. Their "targets"
> are those who brazenly violate the traffic laws knowingly and think
> themselves immune to being stopped.
>
> And YES, while a violation is a violation is a violation, I consider
> violations on different levels. A school zone being a prime example.
> Residential areas get precedence over industrial, and over open road.
> A speeder may take a pass going with the flow, but the one who adds
> weaving in and out to get ahead of the pack becomes a moving target
>> 0) (pun intended).
>
> So, when you say spped trap.... is it really a "trap", or was it a
> motorist who wasn't paying attention and got stopped and is now ticked
> off and complaining about the "speed trap"?
>
> By the way, AAA and other motor clubs I've dealt with, do trip
> planning for members. Based on reports from members, which are
> quantified, they actually stamp the maps with detours around
> construction zones and speed traps and mark the maps as what it is.
> If they get enough complaints the word goes out to all their offices.

I have to say I'm sorry about calling those enforcement zones here in VC
speed traps. They are not speed traps. The officer is almost always visible
and as you say, if the motorist is observant he/she will see them.

I feel much better now. ;-)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:51:07 -0700, "Jeff Mayner"
> wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> From a retired cop point of view....
>>
>> There are legitimate locations which many call speed traps. Those are
SNIP
>> construction zones and speed traps and mark the maps as what it is.
>> If they get enough complaints the word goes out to all their offices.
>
>I have to say I'm sorry about calling those enforcement zones here in VC
>speed traps. They are not speed traps. The officer is almost always visible
>and as you say, if the motorist is observant he/she will see them.
>
>I feel much better now. ;-)
>
Appreciate that, Jeff. Anyone can misstate something. Even a cop.
For example, I always trained my patrolmen never to explain to a
motorist how a radar gun works. But, sure enough, one of my senior
patrolmen did explain to a speeder. It ended up in court. I'm sitting
there on a different case. Imagine my surprise when the Defense asked
my patrolman how a radar gun works, and I hear... "well, the gun
shoots out a signal that strikes the target vehicle's engine and
counts the RPMs which it converts to MPH when the information bounces
back to the gun." Lot of cops in the courtroom burst out laughing.
Unfortunately, the defendant happen to be an aircraft RADAR
technician. Need I add that the case was thrown out?

The sad part was that the patrolman, as good as he was in other areas,
could never go before that judge again without the judge having a
question in his mind about the patrolman's knowledge and training.