Very true. I recently beat a 77-in-a-45 on a technicality (no engineering speed survey as required for establishment of a prima fascie speed limit under law). It kind of made me feel dirty to have to resort to tactics like that since I WAS speeding, but I simply can't abide this B.S. game they play over money and sucking up to the insurance companies, who are legalized extortionists anyway. So I beat it and yes, there are lots of ways to beat such a rap if you do your homework, research the statutes and go in prepared; you'll often know more about the letter-of-the-law than the cop that cites you (I did).

Check this site:

http://www.ticketassassin.com

Excellent information there.



Hey Jeff, on freeways any vehicle left parked for more than FOUR HOURS is considered abandoned and can be removed legally. If you really want to f*ck with 'em next time you see 'em playing this game, call it in and have the crap towed. :) If they refuse or whatever, they're breaking the law (and you can argue resorting to unsafe practices - after all, why would the "four-hour-rule" exist other than to promote safe, abandoned-vehicle-free freeways anyway, right?) :) :) :)

Stick it to the man. Anything that f*cks the insurance companies back is fine by me.

Would be a great web site for someone to build (Milt??). Single resource for motorists/enthusiasts where people post this kind of unethical behavior and maybe autoresponse to CofC that their town is being flagged.

Eh, ...

Why should a police officer warn you that they are about to clock your speed? I don't understand why they even need to park in an obvious spot or make themselves seen. How is descretely clocking a speeder more unethical then violating the local laws and ordinances. Speeding is illegal even if there isn't a police officer present. If a police officer choses to camoflage themselves in some way -- ok. I don't see how the appearance (or lack thereof) of the officer has anything to do with the speeding offense. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to be descrete. If that is "unethical" while speeding is not "unethical", I question your understanding of ethics.

Chosing to exceed the speed limit is a free will kind of thing. We do it at our own risk.

The thing that gets me is all of the officers getting time-and-a-half for parking next to a construction site, and then never being around when I see cars racing (not speeding, racing) down the highway.

The answer to that is pretty straightforward, John.

I respect the police when they are acting as law-enforcement officers; I don't respect a city administration when they compromise LEOs to use them as "revenooers". We have gang problems. We have violent crime problems. We have very valid things for the police to be doing rather than as undercover extortionists. Put them in places where red light running is rampant. Put them at intersections where accidents are common or gridlock happens. Get them out stopping graffiti and gang activity -- but DON'T turn them into "revenooers".

Sudden and unpublished speed-limit reductions are wrong. Shortening yellow lights is wrong (and dangerous). Pay-on-the-spot is wrong if not unconstitutional. Last, but not finally, towns abusing their LEOs in this way diminishes respect for LEOs and is just plain stupid. All for a buck. Rat 'em out and motivate them to use their LEOs properly.

embrace it, don't fight it...

We have photo radar (PR) - everyone whines about it. I love it:

(1) No impact to your driving record with PR. They can't identify the driver. so...

(2) No insurance implications of PR tickets.

(3) No demerits with PR tickets.

(4) Photo radar vehicles are generally easy to spot.

(5) PR pics can easily (not necessarily legally) be defeated with stealthy/dirty license plate covers.

PR is like a speeding tax. Hell, we already pay a premium to drive a Porsche vs. a Toyota - what's an additional speeding tax that you can chose with your driving style to either: (a) maybe have to pay, or (b) never have to pay?

Vote for (if you can) and encourage photo radar it beats the heck out of the alternative.

Eh, how about because being seen is the one way to guarantee that drivers slow down? Oh yeah, I forgot. They don't want to you to slow down. They want to catch you speeding, which 99.9% of cars do regularly, so they can take your money. There is NOTHING wrong with going with the flow of traffic, which is what makes speed limits so ridiculous, especially since they are only used to get money out of people. When I was a kid in NJ, sometimes we saw state troopers driving the speed limit with their lights on and a huge 55mph speed limit sign on the back of their cars. THAT's how you get folks to slow down. And as ridiculous as I thought that was, at least it was a real effort to slow down cars. Dressing up like Santa's helpers or homeless people to snag cars does not slow down a single car. But it does raise money.

Anyone familiar with IFTA regulations pertaining to gasoline purchases. States guarantee they get their fuel tax for the miles trucks drive in their state. Even if you fill up in one state and drive through another, you are on the hook for the tax calculated on the miles you've driven through based on average miles per gallon for your vehicle. Wait until someone gets anal and requires cars to keep logs of miles and fuel purchases and you file fuel tax returns. Their wont be ways to skirt the problem areas.

You don't say...

F*ck them! Nobody "limits" my speed!

It's not about fairness. It's not about 'protect and serve'...it's about revenue.

Just like the war on drugs and all the crazy property siezure laws on the books nowadays.

In Pennsylvania it's radars themselves that are illegal. Only the state cops can use them. :)

I doubt they keep their beater truck at the same spot for anywhere near four hours, Jeff. Probably less than half an hour before they move it.

John, cops used to want to visible when hanging out with a radar gun. That visiblity has the effect of slowing EVERYBODY down, and making for safer roads. Supposedly. When they hide, no one slows down. They get their speeder (still in the name of "traffic safety") but do nothing to increase safety on that section of road. It just makes their new, revenue based motivations all that much more transparent.

Like Supe said, the focus of the WSP has changed. Years ago you really had to work to get a ticket from one; they had better things to do. Most of the time they would simply chastise you for driving like a bone head, and put a good scare into you. Now they walk up to the door with the ticket book already in hand. No question about a ticket anymore; if you are pulled over, they are writing.

The courts have changed as well. Since this is a "code violation" rather than breaking a law, the rules of evidence are vastly more lenient. Basically the cop doesn't have to bring squat to the table, and the "rules" for what he must bring keep getting more and more relaxed. The burden here is very much on you to prove, somehow, that you did not do it if you are innocent. It's just a revolving door for revenue. That is what most of us have a hard time with.

Yes, speeding is illegal. It is illegal because it is obstensibly unsafe. This law is enforced to keep us safe. That is the logical progression of that argument. Now, however, it can be convincingly argued that these methods of enforcement do nothing to increase safety. The whole reason for speed enforcement, as originally sold to the public, has been lost in all of this. The very clear message is that they could care less if everyone slows down, they just want an unnending stream of poor saps that they can pluck from the herd.

Speed limits have little to do with safety. 55 was made national as a result of the energy crisis of the 70's. Now a lot of states have 65 or higher. Have the roads gotten less crowded or have people's driving skills improved since it was 55? I don't think so. When I have to slow down to less than half the posted speed limit to go over a speed bump, that's ridiculous. When I can easily take an exit ramp at more than twice the posted yellow "advisory" speed sign, that's ridiculous. Stop telling me how fast to drive and try getting people off ther cell phones or to use their turn signals or to make sure all three brake lights work. As a motorcyclist, those are the three dangers I see most often on the road. Speed has never been a worry.

Very true. In the late 90's or early 00's when states were given back their ability to raise the limits to what they deemed appropriate, some of you might remember that Montana had no speed limit during the day on some interstates.

I was told, by a resident of Montana, that the speed limit was reintroduced during the daytime hours due to lack of funding, not excess danger or accidents. Somebody can probably elaborate on this as I cannot guarantee that these are the facts, but I know its not far from the truth.

I'm pretty sure the Feds threatened Montana with the withholding of federal highway funds. Montanas "safe and reasonable" speed limit has taken it's place in the dumpster of lost freedoms.

Re: Re: Re: This is why I run a radar detector with a clear conscience...
 

Absolutely! GEICO was a major contributor to the development Lidar (Laser) guns. They make HUGE profits out of raising people above their standard rates.

[tinfoit hat]Now curiously they raise rates under the guise of covering the higher incident rates of speeders... So WHY, I ask you, does it make them profits? Hmmmmm [/tinfoil hat]

My 944 actually gets better gas mileage (miles per tank) at 80mph than at either 55 or 65. I've checked.

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why I run a radar detector with a clear conscience...
 

Well, somebody's gotta pay that cute lil' lizard, don't they?

I remember in the early 90s you didnt even have to have insurance.

They only passed that legal requirement with the FULL support of the IIA.(insurance lobby)

It is all one big, fat, money making scam.

In philly if you go to traffic court to challenge a ticket, if you have a lawyer(short of a DUI), it's discharged. Period. If you don't, you get nailed, period(unless you know someone- as is widely known, the feds have been investigating Philly traffic court for years on corruption suspicions).

Then you go to appeals court, and it's like "lets make a deal'.

No points, no suspension, just pay a fine.

10 no license tickets?

No problem....just pay the fines, no points, no mandatory suspensions.

So obviously it has NOTHING to do with safety, it is a TOTAL money making scam.

+1. Absolutely.

If they were concerned about safety, they'd start cracking down on the junk barges dropping spare tires, used lawn furniture, (probably stolen) landscaping equipment, PVC piping, gatorade jugs, metal ladders and Christ-knows-what-else all over the roadways (and yes, I've personally seen and witnessed all these things happen, most of them while on my motorcycle riding behind, which tends to give one a little "pucker factor").

Either that or they'd crack down on the friggin' illegal aliens that buy a (possibly stolen) $500 beater, go down to the "Habla Espanol" insurance place, obtain a policy (usually by paying for one month down), get their registration and are never seen/heard from again until they have to renew the following year, when they repeat the process. No incentive for law enforcement/government to do anything about it though - their insurance company buddies are makin' too much money denying claims on the basis of "uninsured/underinsured motorist" or by selling premiums for uninsured motorist coverage at hundreds of dollars a crack per year. . .

I friggin' hate insurance companies with the passion of a million flaming suns. Can't you tell?