rickyp wrote:fate
I see t-stops all the time that are improperly done
So, since your own personal experience, plus the FBI statistics, indicate that speeding stops are dangerous ...
You'll agree that avoiding them is a good idea?
No, it's a dumb one--unless you believe people who are speeding are never under the influence of drugs, fleeing the scene of a crime, or may pose a hazard. I said training is the issue, but you want to persist in being a fool.
fate
Cops can't pull you over and search your vehicle without cause. Why? Oh, the Constitution
No. They have to pretend they have a cause. Like speeding.
You might think that. However, now that most units have video cameras, lying probably isn't the best move.
Let me ask you, since you know so much, how do cops determine if someone is speeding? Go ahead, feel free to write ALL of your knowledge. I'll read it all.
How is this evidence of it being a cash ploy?
1 is a choice...period.
A choice? So, the city is foregoing higher fines . . . out of a sense of altruism?
2. Is a great idea to decrease the cost of enforcement where possible.
This doesn't do that. If you take any cops off the street, that leaves fewer to respond to more serious situations. But, again, feel free to cite your vast experience.
3. You are fining the owner of the car, not the driver. Points are a penalty imposed personnally. The fine is aimed at the owner ensuring that whomever drvies the car is responsible.
That's rubbish. If someone is a danger, shouldn't their license be revoked. You said (rightly) driving is a privilege. Now you seem to be saying that the privilege should be revoked by the owner of a vehicle, not the State. It would not take Columbo to sort out who the driver was.
4. Could be. But the consitutional challenges against random stops are greater than against speed stops. And the notion that speeding is an indication of some other crime you offer no evidence for ....
Again, you're being moronic. Speeding is not NECESSARILY an indicator of some other crime, but it can be. If someone robs a bank, they are somewhat more likely to make haste as they depart. If someone is under the influence, speeding may be an indicator--just as driving too slowly may be.
5. And the reasons for that could be many...
Not really. Speed traps have only two purposes: safety or revenue. If it's safety, you should have no problem showing how Denver has massively improved their traffic safety.
http://www.insureinfoblog.com/2009/02/d ... as-ec.html "A new study to be published in next month's Journal of Law and Economics finds statistical evidence that local governments use traffic citations to make up for revenue shortfalls. So as the economy tanks, motorists may be more likely to see red and blue in the rearview."
So, do they improve safety?
Apparently not:A recent audit conducted by Denver, Colorado's city auditor has revealed that red light cameras and speed cameras are not improving public safety as promised. The audit found that the cameras do little else than boost the city's revenue generated from traffic tickets.
"Unfortunately, the Denver Police Department has not demonstrated that the photo radar program has a positive impact on public safety," City Auditor Dennis J. Gallagher wrote. "Because these programs were sold as public safety enhancements but are widely viewed as a cash grab, it undermines public trust to maintain photo enforcement programs that are profitable but whose safety impact has not been conclusively shown. If this situation persists, then the photo enforcement programs should be shut down."
. . . "A reduction in violations does not necessarily entail a significant reduction in speed, nor does it indicate a decrease in accident rates or pedestrian injuries," the audit report noted. "Further, a 2006 internal DPD assessment suggests that DPD believes driver's habits adjust as citizens become familiar with the locations of the photo radar vans. Therefore, a decrease in violations does not directly correlate to a sustained decrease in speeds after photo radar is deployed to a different location."
The audit was also critical of the city's red light cameras. Because the red light cameras were installed along with enlarged signal heads, countdown timers and longer yellow light durations, Gallagher says its impossible to calculated the added safety value of the cameras. He also points out that at "three of the four intersections with red light cameras, the number of right angle accidents was decreasing before the red light cameras were installed."
In fact, the cameras were catching so few red light violations that the city began to ticket motorists for stopping even a few inches beyond the stop bar. Denver is the only city in Colorado that tickets drivers for coming to a complete stop at red lights.
The city has little defense for the audit other than it would be "impossible to conduct a study that would satisfy the auditor's concerns." It's estimated that the city of Denver will generate more than $7 million in revenue from its mobile radar program alone in 2011.
So . . . I've got proof and you've got your spurious notions.
So what. The speed trap could still be in an unfair location. The cop could be lieing about the radar result. And you and/or the cop could be hit whilst stopped by the side of a busy highway.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You can fight all of these things. I've done it and I've seen it done. Remember: I beat a radar ticket way back when.
As for safety of t-stops, again, it's a matter of training. Then again, since you're making everything else up, I'm not surprised you're making assertions about something you know nothing--other than a survey. That survey cannot tell you the level of training the officers had, etc.
fate
Actually, you don't know that. it's not a "camera." There is a person there. What we don't know is if that van has the capability of running license plates. If so, the propensity to lie about rental cars would be enormous.
You realy haven't looked into this have you? There are three kinds of speed cameras in use, and none are "selective" as you imagine.
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/how-s ... 18060.html
That's so funny! You posted a link that proves nothing about your contention. From your link:
The mobile cameras are the ones to be found on police vehicles. Also referred to as radars, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes, being vehicle-mounted, hand-held, tripod mounted and concealed (meaning hidden where you least expect).
This type of camera comes with its built-in detection equipment, allowing the carrier to accurately record the speed of incoming motorists regardless of the carrier being stationary or not. They can also detect speed regardless of the carrier moving with or against the flow of traffic.
The camera is based on laser technology (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), emitting a light beam towards the incoming vehicle. It takes the beam 0.3 to 0.7 seconds to acquire and register a target at an operational range of 800 meters.
What happens after the target is locked is called the Doppler effect and can be explained like described below.
The radar sends out the aforementioned beam at specific frequencies and at an angle across the roadway. When a car enters its field, the radar is reflected and the beam changes frequency because of the relative motion between the radar and the vehicle. The degree in which the frequency increases or decreases depends on the speed at which the passing vehicle is traveling.
Mobile cameras are also capable of detecting the direction in which the monitored vehicle is traveling in. Frequency is the main tool here as well: if it increases, the vehicle is incoming, while if it decreases, the vehicle is moving away from the carrier.
And now, a little on how the radar determines the size of the ticket you will get: how does it determine speed ? As we said above, the degree in which the frequency increases or decreases is used to determine speed. Because the beams are directed at an angle (usually 20 degrees) compared to the road, the shift in frequency will indicate a speed lower than the target's actual speed. The radar calculates the slant angle and then, using trigonometry, it determines the speed in the direction of travel.
NOTHING in your article negates what I'm talking about. Someone is with the radar unit that cited me. It's in a van and moves around the city. So . . . your point is what? That you're a fool? You've illustrated that on a thousand occasions.
So, why couldn't they run registration?
It would be great if that cop were doing something that a camera couldn't replace him for... But as to the question of results? If a camera at a fixed location doesn't have any speeders, it might be assessed to make sure its working.
Again, it was not a camera at a fixed location that issued a citation to me.
In any event, I think I've demonstrated Denver did it for the revenue. You're just . . . being a donkey. The Denver city auditor disagrees with you.
So, I've given proof that eliminates your entire argument. I don't expect that will stop you because you're as stubborn as your namesake.
21 Jul 2013, 1:17 pm 
