DC Police Chief Whines about iPhone App That Monitors Speed Traps

Published on July 15th, 2009

Police chief denounces ‘cowardly’ iPhone users monitoring speed traps.

Area drivers looking to outwit police speed traps and traffic cameras are using an iPhone application and other global positioning system devices that pinpoint the location of the cameras. That has irked D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier, who promised her officers would pick up their game to counteract the devices, which can also help drivers dodge sobriety checkpoints.

“I think that’s the whole point of this program,” she told The Examiner. “It’s designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.”

Read: Make Money

The new technology streams to i-Phones and global positioning system devices, sounding off an alarm as drivers approach speed or red-light cameras. Lanier said the technology is a “cowardly tactic” and “people who overly rely on those and break the law anyway are going to get caught” in one way or another. The greater D.C. area has 290 red-light and speed cameras — comprising nearly 10 percent of all traffic cameras in the U.S., according to estimates by a camera-tracking database called the POI Factory.

PhantomAlert mimics radar detectors — which are outlawed in D.C. and Virginia — by alerting drivers of nearby enforcement “points of interest” via global positioning system devices. PhantomAlert keeps up to date on traffic enforcement through its users, who contribute information online.

Photo radar tickets generated nearly $1 billion in revenues for D.C. during fiscal years 2005 to 2008. In the current fiscal year, Montgomery County expects to make $29 million from its red light and speed cameras. Lanier said efforts to outlaw the software would be too difficult. She said, “with the Internet and all the new technology, it’s almost impossible to stop the flow of information.”

Isn’t counter surveillance great? Since I started traveling in New Mexico, “The Land of Entrapment” I’ve found this app is worth the price of the phone itself!

53 users responded in " DC Police Chief Whines about iPhone App That Monitors Speed Traps "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Sea Lawyer said, on July 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am

It’s designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.

Don’t them mean law enforcement meant to general local revenue?

# 2 Sea Lawyer said, on July 15th, 2009 at 11:31 am

bah, should be generate, not general.

# 3 Improbus said, on July 15th, 2009 at 11:41 am

Ahem, here is one of those evil web site/ software combos now: http://trapster.com. It is totally cross platform yo!

# 4 ren said, on July 15th, 2009 at 11:58 am

huh, if they slow down before they get to the camera then they are not “breaking the law”, this is no different from seeing a speed sign.

Any kind of automated system like this is bs, most cops I know are more likely to give a verbal warning unless you’re being a dick about it or a habitual offender

# 5 Benjamin said, on July 15th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

“It’s designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.”

Won’t people slowing down near speed traps and stopping at red lights that they know have cameras on them save lives? She is crying about lost revenue from tickets. She doesn’t care about saving lives.

# 6 mrmigu@mrmigu.com said, on July 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

If this technology is based on user submitted data, how hard would it be for the police to submit false traps so that drivers are more likely to follow these laws.

Or if it is just a cash grab on their parts, why not just market a similar app which would have more accurate info

# 7 Lou said, on July 15th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

BS from the PD never ends.

# 8 bill said, on July 15th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

What iPhone app?
PhantomAlert isn’t for iPhones

# 9 Brian said, on July 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Texas makes no pretense about the revenue generating aspects of traffic stops. There are several laws in place statewide that defy reason, but only seem to be in place to prevent lost revenue.
-it is illegal to flash your lights at oncoming cars (high or low beams) to warn them as they’re approaching a speed trap (just the old-timer’s way of doing the same thing as this iPhone app)
-it used to be illegal for unmarked cars to make traffic stops, but isn’t anymore. it was illegal in the first place because in the 70’s and 80’s there were serial rapists who would stop women on state highways by pursuing them in non-police vehicles with flashing red and blue lights on them. they rescinded the ban because too many people were getting out of tickets due to claims of entrapment by unmarked cars. rather than abandon the practice, they changed the law.
-it used to be mandatory that, if requested, the cop would HAVE to show you the radar display showing time and speed indication to prove on the spot that you were speeding. apparently it was to prevent unscrupulous cops from making spurious stops AND to keep them from locking in a speed reading and charing non-violators with a violation to meet their quota. I think they got rid of that about three years ago.
-there are roads in many small towns where the speed decreases by 15-20 mph for a 500 ft stretch of road, and then jumps back up to a normal highway speed.

funny thing is…they pay so much attention to speeders because they bring back the higher dollar ticket amounts, but they could easily surpass their current revenues by ticketing all the morons who violate the lesser laws (center turn lane is NOT for merging into traffic, turn signals must be used to change lanes, etc.)

# 10 Daniel said, on July 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

If the issue is in fact safety then having people aware of enforcement that makes them slow down and behave (at least temporarily) seems like a better choice then letting people think they can get away with it and then ticketing them after the fact.

# 11 John E. Quantum said, on July 15th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

An intesting side note is that DC police officers that receive speed camera or red light tickets must pay them if they can’t prove via the daily dispatch log that they were responding to an emergency. That makes the cameras seem a little more fair.

However, in Montgomery County Maryland, an adjacent jurstiction, a judge recently threw out several police officers speed camera tickets when they claimed that “speeding is part of a police officers job” and that it was too much trouble to remmber if they were responding to an emergency when they received the speed camera ticket.

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

Since we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people, it would appear with the red light and speeding cameras we are preying on ourselves. Like Pogo said “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

# 12 David said, on July 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Actually, what they need to do is have two cameras that are a couple of miles from each other, and then judge your speed by the time it takes to travel that distance. And yes, I support the speed cameras but only because I think it will lead to more reasonable speed limits as people are actually forced to follow the rule of law.

# 13 Luc said, on July 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

“Won’t people slowing down near speed traps and stopping at red lights that they know have cameras on them save lives?”

Yes, but only when they know they’re approaching a trap. Everywhere else, people will step hard on the gas and risk lives. The idea of the traps is to keep drivers within the speed limits because they never know if they’re being watched.

I would LOVE, LOVE to see people run as fast as they can if that would pose a risk to their own lives only. I would look for news of car crashes first thing in the morning and laugh out loud at every moran who retired themselves from the world prematurely. But these assholes usually take someone else with them, so speed traps FTW.

# 14 Luc said, on July 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

BTW, the crying baby picture used by Mr. “I Write For A Blog And I’m Not Afraid To Use It” works both ways. All you have to do is obey the traffic regulations that have been put in place for a reason. If you don’t violate them, you don’t get tickets. Easy peasy.

So stop whining about tickets and traps. Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah! Just grow up and see how surprisingly good it feels.

# 15 sargasso said, on July 15th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

There is no such thing, as a bad driver. It is like saying, someone is “a bad walker”. There are however, bad people. Automobiles merely provide these people with an opportunity for self expression.

# 16 Zybch said, on July 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

The US only has 2,900 red light cameras??
And #13, you do understand right, that the majority of speed and redlight cameras are placed where there is no general risk, or in danger spots right?
They are mostly installed in areas and along roads where people generally drive a bit faster and rarely get into accidents, or just after a speed change sign is placed and you haven’t slowed down to match it yet.

# 17 Improbus said, on July 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

The cops would really be in a pickle if everyone obeyed the law. Good thing there are plenty of people on the south end of the bell curve to feed the maw of “justice”.

# 18 McCullough said, on July 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

#13. So Luc, if I obey the laws which I do, and I am stopped at a DUI checkpoint where I am treated as though I have been drinking and driving (which I do not) …..your good with that? And people wonder why we are losing our liberties on a daily basis. Look in the mirror, and admire the sheep that is staring back at you.

BTW, If you don’t like the blog, or a particular editor. Leave, no one will miss you.

# 19 Luc said, on July 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

#17 What a lame excuse. If you obey the laws as you claim, you should have no beef with speed traps. Being stopped at DUI checkpoints has nothing to do with speed traps. Or are these speed traps robots with legs that chase you and pull you over? See how your argumentation doesn’t hold any water.

Yeah, tell me to go away. Whether I do or don’t have a point and you grasp at straws doesn’t matter at all. Nice way to oppose authoritarianism.

# 20 deowll said, on July 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

The cops can fritz the system by posting reports that they are everywhere. It should be a great way to slow down people with chronic lead foot.

The people that don’t slow down should still provide an adequate revenue stream.

# 21 tcc3 said, on July 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pm

Luc the problem is when they aren’t honest about it. As much as I diskile speed enforcement, youre right that it is the law.

When most of us refer to speed traps we mean unscrupulous situations setup by the police to entrap people.

Hard to see speed limit signs. Sudden, severe, and temporary speed limit changes. Basically situations where its obvious the object is not safety, but to trick people for revenue purposes.

# 22 Rick's Cafe said, on July 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Stupid politicians making bad laws that force citizens to be criminals…wonder when it will end?

# 23 GetSmart said, on July 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

DUI laws are mostly about revenue collection. DUI’s could be cut down dramatically by a few changes in the law.
1: Bars can only have a small parking lot for bar employees use only. Taxi, Bus or shanks mare for everyone else. Smart Bar operators would partner up with local cab companies for special Happy Hour rate for bar patrons. Restaurants whose main business is food, two drink limit, and no super-duper large drinks.
2: Liquor Stores are now like Domino’s. They deliver.
3: No cold beer in convenience stores or grocery stores.
Of course it’ll never happen. Cops, lawyers, judges and local politicians wouldn’t need to hear the howls from pub owners and liquor distributors to oppose this. The loss of DUI revenue alone would be enough to drown this baby in the bathtub.

# 24 Thomas said, on July 15th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

The problem is that speed traps are not put in place to improve public safety; they are put in place to increase local revenue. Thus, you get nonsense like clandestine speed limit changes (55 for 30 miles, then 1 mile of 50, then back to 55. Guess where the cop will be) etc. If the government(s) really cared about keeping speeds down, they’d mandate governors (heh) on cars.

# 25 Carcarius said, on July 15th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

“I think that’s the whole point of this program,” she told The Examiner. “It’s designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.”

…bullshit…

Not anymore. If we’re talking about evading a speeding ticket, then we’re talking about evading the random driving tax. We all must know by now that police that stake out speeders have quotas and ticket speeders as a revenue stream for local governments. I mean, seriously, we MUST all know this by now.

If it was all about safety, don’t build cars that go over the speed limit!!!

In reference to using the app to evade sobriety checkpoints… if you can successfully use the iPhone app in order to find a different route then you are not drunk enough to need a cab.

# 26 Carcarius said, on July 15th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

I have reason to feel justified in what I think since I have friends who are state troopers and they freely admit what it’s all about. Amazingly, governments have increased the size of their law enforcement workforce over the years, which will naturally mean more cops to catch you speeding AND more motivation to fine you because they need to pay all these cops who are fining you.

It’s a racket and we tax payers and non-government / law enforcement are the rubes.

# 27 AkiKazeta said, on July 16th, 2009 at 3:28 am

#18 Luc you’ve got to be kidding me… “If you obey the laws as you claim, you should have no beef with speed traps.” So I suppose you’re OK with random searches of your property because you have nothing to hide?

And what we’re talking about here aren’t speed traps but photo radar. Speed traps are real Police officers pulling you over and issuing tickets, photo radar takes a nice picture and you get a fine in the mail. One of these systems actually stops the speeder, the other generates revenue.

# 28 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 4:31 am

#26, Aki,

So you are fine with the murderer that also makes a claim that the police tricked him into not getting away.

What you and the rest of the the inconsiderate ijits around here don’t understand is, IT IS ILLEGAL TO SPEED! This shouldn’t be about how best to evade the law. If you don’t like the law, CHANGE IT!

The police don’t decide what the speed limit on a certain section of road is. That is done by the Highway Department under guidelines from the Department of Transportation where the whole intent is to harmonize all traffic laws. If there is a sudden decrease in speed for no apparent reason, look for a school, a lot of pedestrian traffic, or dangerous stretch of highway.

# 29 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 4:42 am

Knowing there is a stretch of highway that may be patrolled or have a camera should not be the determining factor in anyone obeying the traffic laws.

Currently we pay over $1200 a year for car insurance. And yes that is cheap. In contrast, we pay less than $500 a year for gas, and bitch like hell it is so expensive.

One of the major reasons we pay so much for insurance is because of all the silly people that believe they have some constitutional, god given right to decide for themselves what the speed limit or level of intoxication should be.

And they justify this with some silly excuse that the traffic laws are meant to raise money.

# 30 Rick's Cafe said, on July 16th, 2009 at 5:03 am

#28
Your argument skills amaze me (honestly).

The ability to not only compare but to make a strong argument that we aren’t paying enough in gasoline prices – as compared with the promise to pay $500,000* when you hurt someone while driving a car – is quite a feat.

*and that’s just the liability coverage. can’t forget about repairing all that damaged property that occurred in the accident. And of course, your medical bills are also paid for as well as that rental car you get to use while everything gets fixed. And best of all, your policy will do all of that even if the other guy (who doesn’t’ have insurance) is at fault.

Maybe it’s not such a fair price comparison after all?

# 31 Sea Lawyer said, on July 16th, 2009 at 5:09 am

#28, Fusion has an almost cult-like reverence for statutory law, but any time he feels the feds should create a new program or interject itself into people’s lives to achieve some goal he supports, whether or not the Constitution allows for it or not, he’s more than willing to just ignore, or “reinterpret” it.

# 32 orangetiki said, on July 16th, 2009 at 5:15 am

So where is the app?

# 33 Thomas said, on July 16th, 2009 at 5:56 am

#27
What you clearly have missed is that the laws themselves are in question. Should the government be allowed to set a speed limit when they cannot justify it via public safety? If all revenue to local government from speeding tickets were eliminated, speeding enforcement would drop like a rock. It would be revert back to enforcement for purposes of public safety and not for local revenue. I live in LA and there are some freeways where the limit ought to be 80 MPH. The primary reason it is 55 is for revenue purposes. It is a stupid game that the police and the drivers all understand. I would much rather have police patrolling school zones for speeding than freeways.

# 34 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:08 am

#29, Rick,

The promise to pay a certain amount in insurance is irrelevant. If there were no “accidents” then the premium would be free and the need non-existant.

I spent several years doing industrial accident investigation. The premise I always started from is there is no such thing as an “accident”. There is always an assignable cause. It is my understanding that in traffic “accidents” the most common contributing factor is excessive speed. It is also the largest factor in the severity of injury and damage.

With the insurance, my policy will pay if I’m in an accident. My premiums will rise though whether or not I am at fault. If the next idiot that thinks he owns the road causes an accident and is insured by my company, my premiums will contribute to that payout. All our premiums goes to cover the loss. That is the way the game is played.

Fewer accidents and less payouts. Most insurance companies recognize that by reducing premiums for good (safe) drivers.

# 35 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:16 am

#32, Thomas,

What you clearly have missed is that the laws themselves are in question. Should the government be allowed to set a speed limit when they cannot justify it via public safety?

No one has established that any of the spots chosen by the DC Police Department could not be justified by public safety. Reading the above comments is the distinct impression that many people want to set the limit at what THEY think is a safe limit.

I live in LA and there are some freeways where the limit ought to be 80 MPH. The primary reason it is 55 is for revenue purposes. It is a stupid game that the police and the drivers all understand.

Wrong. Most, if not all the freeways in the LA area are US Interstates. Federal law requires a maximum safe speed limit of 55 mph on all Interstate highways in urban areas. While you might think this is set by the police, it isn’t. The areas are determined by the California Department of Highways.

Again, you are the one trying to determine what a safe speed is. You don’t have any studies to back up your position. All you have is your strong desire to do what you want, regardless of what the law is.

# 36 Luc said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:41 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgiVicpZGk

# 37 Thomas said, on July 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

> the most common contributing
> factor is excessive speed

True. Not the cause of the accident mind you, but a contributor to the additional damage resulting from the accident. If anyone really thought speed was the cause of the accident, then they also must believe that we should all drive 10 MPH. After, all, going from 10 to 20 doubles the speed and dramatically increases the damage.

It should also be noted that many of these statistics are toyed with by law enforcement to further their own position. For example, suppose someone turns left in front traffic and causes an accident. If the person that hit the driver turning left was speeding, they will claim that speeding contributed to the accident which is utter nonsense.

> Federal law requires a maximum safe
> speed limit of 55 mph on all Interstate
> highways in urban areas. While you might
> think this is set by the police, it isn’t.
> The areas are determined by the California
> Department of Highways.

A. I believe it is actually 65 maximum and the States are left to decide limits lower than that.
B. That does not explain the numerous freeways which are not interstates.
C. The CDH coordinates closely with all law enforcement agencies and especially the CHP.

> Again, you are the one
> trying to determine what a
> safe speed is.

The speed of traffic is the safe speed. If everyone is going 80, then someone going 55 is a menace. On a fast flowing freeway, people doing the speed limit are more likely to cause an accident from people trying to get around them than the people traveling at the speed of traffic.

# 38 GaryWaller said, on July 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Lets face it, like everything else government does, the stated purpose (which is usually benevolent sounding – i.e. feed the starving children, reduce traffic injuries) is almost never the real motivation behind creating some new “program” or implementing a new law. Lowered speed limits in the name of safety are an old ploy, just a way of producing revenue by creating a ridiculous low limit that is unrealistic and difficult to maintain – the common speed trap. These cameras are nothing more than a higher-tech version of the old gag with the motorcycle cop hiding behind the billboard. A cheap trick and nothing more than a revenue producing device. In some places they even sink as low as shortening yellow light times to trick drivers into running a red…dirty and low! The best way I have found to keep their thieving hands out of my pockets is to know where the cameras are and avoid them entirely when possible. The simplest way is to use your auto GPS unit and program it with camera and sped trap data you can get at a site like http://www.gpscameradetector.com.

# 39 Luc said, on July 16th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

#35 If everyone is going 80, then someone going 55 is a menace. On a fast flowing freeway, people doing the speed limit are more likely to cause an accident from people trying to get around them than the people traveling at the speed of traffic.

What?!!! So everyone violates the limit, refuses to obey the limit, and the one who obeys the limit is the menace because the violators are forced(???) to try to get around the one who is not violating so they can violate? You are A-MAZ-ING!

# 40 Thomas said, on July 16th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

#37
Let’s try a simpler analogy that your mind can understand. If everyone is doing 65, which the purposes of this analogy, let us suppose is the posted speed limit, and someone is doing 40, the person doing 40 is a menace. They are creating a traffic hazard. Anyone doing substantially less, or more, than the flow of traffic is increasing the risk of an accident.

The reason they require regular traffic surveys on highways (think surface streets) in CA is specifically to stop this type of nonsense where the posted limit does not match the speed most people are driving and that process works great on highways. However, it does not apply to freeways where CHP and local revenue whoring localities have bullied the legislation into capping the speed at 65. Hell, there are parts the I-5 where the limit ought to be 100. If you are doing 80, you better be in slow lane because a semi will drive right over you.

# 41 Carcarius said, on July 16th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Just look at Germany and their Autoban highway. As far as I know they still allow fast speeds which means that safety isn’t being compromised all that much. I guess Americans are just worse drivers than they are over there?

# 42 Cap'nKangaroo said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

#38 “Hell, there are parts the I-5 where the limit ought to be 100. If you are doing 80, you better be in slow lane because a semi will drive right over you.”

I drive a semi and you don’t drive a semi over 65 mph in CA. The posted limit in ALL of California is 55 mph for big trucks (and autos/pickups/RV pulling trailers but nobody pays attention to this). You put your wallet at serious risk to speed in a truck in California because the speeding fines are not the same as for autos, they are more like 5-10 times higher. It is not unheard of for a fine of $800 for going 65-70 mph in some of the loneliest stretches of I-15, I-10 or I-40.

When I run CA I always try to stay around 60-63 mph along with the vast majority of other trucks. I would hazard the observation that 99.5% of all trucks running in CA never go above 70 mph. In addition, just about all trucks owned by the major trucking companies are governed around 65-68 mph.

# 43 Cap'nKangaroo said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

When the rear view mirror was introduced to American autos, local law enforcement lambasted them much the same as this police chief does. It made it so much harder for the police to come up behind and pace you without your knowledge.

# 44 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:26 pm

#38, Thomas,

Once again you missed the point. The upper limit is 65. Unless there is a lower limit than the vehicle traveling 40 is well within their right to travel on that highway.

Part of being on any road in the US, and indeed most of the civilized world, goes with the understanding you SHARE the highway.

It is clear that you have no intention of sharing the road and take the attitude that you own the road and everyone not driving as fast as you can get off the road. That only contributes to my high insurance premiums.

Your example of speed being a contributor is bogus. The faster the vehicle is traveling, the further it will travel in the time it takes the driver to respond. It also means that in your left turn example, the car turning could misjudge the speed and time he has to make the turn. Most red light runners do so because they know they could not safely stop in time.

# 45 AkiKazeta said, on July 17th, 2009 at 3:30 am

#27 Fusion – “So you are fine with the murderer that also makes a claim that the police tricked him into not getting away.”

What the hell are you talking about?

“IT IS ILLEGAL TO SPEED!”

No one is arguing that it isn’t illegal to speed. What I’m saying is that photo radar does nothing to stop someone from speeding whereas a cop that pulls someone over does.

# 46 Mr. Fusion said, on July 17th, 2009 at 6:29 am

#43, Aki,

You stated that photo radar does not catch speeders. I say it does work. If you know you might end up being caught speeding and be assessed a fine you just might take that into consideration the next time the urge to speed overwhelms you.

Your equivalence that a warrantless search of my property is the same as a photo radar set-up is silly. Just as silly and ridiculous as is the murderer being tricked by the police.

Yet, that is exactly your argument, the police must be above board when they catch you breaking the law. If the police get the fingerprints or analyze the DNA from a murder scene, is that any different than catching you speeding with photo radar?

# 47 AkiKazeta said, on July 17th, 2009 at 6:57 am

# 44 Fusion.

Ah! Yes, you’re correct. I misread Luc’s original comment – I retract my comment regarding marrantless searches. (My aplogies to Luc.)

As for the rest… re-read my comments. I never said that photo radar doesn’t “catch” the speeder. I said it doesn’t “stop” the speeder. There is a distinction. When the police pull over the speeder they are physically stopped. As well, points are issues against the speeders license so there’s potential for the license to be suspended.

With photo radar, the speeder is not physically stopped. The speeder receives a ticket in the mail days later with no points issued against their license. Under this model, the speeder can continue to speed for as long as he/she has money to pay for the photo radar tickets.

Does it stop the speeder? No. Does it generate revenue? Yes.

# 48 Thomas said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:33 am

#42
Clearly you do not spend much time in traffic. Sharing has to do with mutual concern for safety. If everyone is doing 65, your privilege (since driving is not a right) to do 40 is putting other people at risk. Even the DMV manual states that it is safer to drive the speed of traffic than to necessarily go the exact speed of the limit. I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that have a clue and that means driving with the flow of traffic.

RE: Left turn example

Actually, my example is dead on. The person turning left has to account for the other vehicle’s speed whether too slow, too fast, or variable. The accident is caused by someone turning when it wasn’t clear. Speed will make the damage worse, but it is not the cause of the accident. If you really think that speed is the cause, then why not push for making the limit 10 MPH or for mandated governor’s on cars that prevent them from speeding?

Most cops will tell you that most speeding laws, not all, but most, are geared towards revenue generation or as an excuse to stop someone and not public safety.

# 49 Thomas said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:34 am

#46
That should have read:
“Most cops will tell you that most speeding limits…”

# 50 Mr. Fusion said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:09 am

Thomas,

I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that have a clue and that means driving with the flow of traffic.

Which translates as “You are perfectly comfortable with sharing the road with others that take a similar view of disregarding the law.”

The vehicle traveling slower than you has every right to be there and traveling at that speed. Why they are traveling slower is irrelevant; it could be because they are pulling a trailer, it is a heavily laden truck, the vehicle is having mechanical problems, it is a student or young driver, etc. It is not up to you to decide if they should or should not be allowed on the road.

Your excessive speed though, as you rightly point out, is a cause of concern when meeting up with someone going so much slower. YOU are the one unable to react in time to avoid them. And it is your speed that influences your reaction time.

What if instead of a slower vehicle, there is some debris on the road? That debris is now traveling 65 mph slower than you. Guess what? Hit the debris and it is almost always your fault for any damage. Not sharing the road and being prepared for the unexpected is the leading cause of accidents on freeways. If you can’t react in time because of your speed then guess what the root cause of the accident is?

*
Left Turn

If you judge the distance to the oncoming vehicle will take 6 seconds to reach the intersection yet is traveling 50% faster (ie 45 in a 30) then it will reach the intersection in 4 seconds. Bang, time enough for a collision.

Being that as it may, turning left into oncoming traffic is always a risk.

Most cops I know are just doing their assigned job. When I asked our local Sheriff (a neighbor) about a very similar point a few years back his response was illuminating. It was to the effect “After pulling one dead body from a wreck, it isn’t just a little over the limit anymore”. Something to think about the next time you get caught speeding.

# 51 Mr. Fusion said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am

#45, Aki,

Under this model, the speeder can continue to speed for as long as he/she has money to pay for the photo radar tickets.

Good point. It is precisely because there is no pullover that the fines are less and do not carry “points”. They also are assessed to the vehicle, the same as a parking ticket instead of the driver.

I don’t know about you but I can’t afford too many tickets. In fact, I don’t know anyone that can. If you can afford them, do you think having a cop stop you will make any difference?

People do illegal things thinking that they won’t get caught. Even you would think someone deliberately speeding, knowing they are going to get caught, is either an idiot or mentally unstable.

# 52 AkiKazeta said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

#51 Fusion

In 10 years driving in a city with photo radar I have received a whopping 2 photo radar tickets and have been pulled over exactly zero times. I don’t have what you’d call an impressive income but even I can afford a couple tickets a year. Hypothetically speaking, if points were being issued against my license which drove my insurance rates up and which put me in risk of losing my license, I might speed less. But that’s not the world we live in. Many (MANY) people have higher incomes than I do.

Do I think people who speed, knowing they are going to get caught, are idiots or mentally unstable? Maybe they are. But maybe they just don’t give a crap about the money. I bet they care whether they have a license at all though.

The fact that the D.C. area is showing such high rates of revenue would seem to indicate that there’s plenty of money and few who care about that money, floating around. If the D.C. police could show a dramatic reduction in revenue from photo radar, I might be willing to concede that the photo radar was working to reduce speeding. I suspect that the statistics show otherwise.

# 53 Thomas said, on July 20th, 2009 at 6:10 am

> Which translates as “You are perfectly
> comfortable with sharing the road with
> others that take a similar view of
> disregarding the law.”

No, I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that consider accident aversion to more important than following the letter of the law. In most circumstances, following the letter of the law does reduce accident risk but there are times when it does not. A driver with a clue knows the difference.

> The vehicle traveling slower than
> you has every right to be there and
> traveling at that speed.

Actually, no they don’t. First, no one has a right to be driving. Second, many cities actually impose speed minimums. For example, if memory serves Denver has a speed minimum of 40 MPH under optimal conditions. If the limit is 65 and everyone is doing 40 but someone is doing 65, that person driving substantially faster than the speed of traffic is as much a hazard as someone doing 40 when everyone else is doing 65.

> Why they are traveling slower
> is irrelevant; it could be because
> they are pulling a trailer, it is a
> heavily laden truck, the vehicle
> is having mechanical problems, it
> is a student or young driver, etc.
> It is not up to you to decide if
> they should or should not be
> allowed on the road.

As I stated above, no one has a right to be driving on the freeway. Second, IMO, if a truck cannot do the speed minimum, they shouldn’t be on the freeway. There was a particular two lane freeway grade near my house where trucks would do 20 up the grade during rush hour which caused massive traffic delays (easily added an hour to my commute) and yes accidents as people tried to get around the trucks. That is not sharing the road. That is causing massive traffic delays and accidents because they could not be bothered to change their schedule, lighten their load or take a different route.

> Your excessive speed though,
> as you rightly point out, is a cause
> of concern when meeting up with someone
> going so much slower.

No one said anything about excessive speed. In my example, suppose the limit is 65. If everyone is doing 65 except one person doing 40, that person is increasing the risk of an accident.

> YOU are the one unable to react
> in time to avoid them. And it is
> your speed that influences your
> reaction time.

There are number of reasons why reaction time is a bullshit argument. If reaction time is an issue, then the DMV ought to be testing for it. Second, there are numerous elderly drivers with awful reaction times even if everyone were doing 10 MPH. Third, an the end of the day speed does not cause the vast majority of accidents. Bad judgment relating to something other than speed causes the vast majority accidents. Speed simply exacerbates the damage.

> What if instead of a slower vehicle, there
> is some debris on the road? …

This example is completely irrelevant. It is also the case that the debris is traveling 40 MPH slower than you if you hit at 40..or 30 or 20… If road conditions call for slower speeds then driving substantially faster than the speed of traffic is *also* a hazard.

RE: Left Turn

Again, reaction time is a bullshit argument. Everyday, there are elderly people and sleep deprived people driving on the roads. No DMV that I’m aware of tests for reaction time. As I said, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what speed the oncoming car is traveling. If they are doing 100 or 10, the person turning left is obligated to wait until it is clear. Assuming that running a red is not part of the scenario, if the person turning left hits the oncoming car, they are at fault as they should be. The error in judgment was turning when it wasn’t clear.

RE: COP and “over the limit”

So, what about an accident at 65 as opposed to 55? What about 65 as opposed to 40? There is no question that speed exacerbates damage. The question is whether it caused the accident in the first place.

Actually #52 brings up an excellent point. If speed is viewed so badly then why are the fines not substantially higher? Why are they not equivalent to DUIs? It also brings into question as to why we don’t make the speed limit 10 MPH everywhere. After all, someone going 20 MPH more than doubles the amount of energy on impact.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!