By mustafa on Nov 27, 2008

I lose the speed ticket leder can send egen to me

By Larry on Oct 27, 2008

I’m totally against this speed camera. The county and the camera companies try to make money from the citizen. What else are they going to spy us? Is this freedom of movement or democracy? Seems like socialist state nowaday. Spy every where as North Korea.

Most people slow down at the camera and after that they speed up to make it up.

We need to do petition drive to stop this speed camera.

I’m very sick of this.

By Tim on Oct 2, 2008

I understand what you are saying. You live in the Northeast and fully understand the courtesy conditions. I don’t care for them too much and rarely intrude on anyone else’s stops/tickets, BUT I constantly deal with these incidents among other officers.

I don’t mind giving someone a helping hand, I’ll do that for just about anyone, but when they kick dirt in your face, then dial up their brother on their cell phone who’s a Capt. in a nearby department, I do get pissed off.

It’s this part of the country. I know from speaking with other officers that they regularly say “watch out down south, they don’t care who you are, you’ll get a ticket”. I tell them I won’t, because I won’t do anything that bad to get myself stopped in the first place!

A NY Trooper tagged me one night. I was driving to Vermont via the Thru Way, then Lake George. It was the middle of winter at about 2:30 in the morning. It’s scary dark and desolate around that area, that time of year (I heard the Jason, Cha, Cha, Cha, sounds) He stopped me for 53 in a 45. That’s pretty tough. He let me go pretty quick (I saw him and stopped just in front of him as he sat on the side of the road with his lights off, then on). I gave him my stuff AND I did tell him I was a police officer. I wanted to make him a little bit more comfortable being so far out and alone. He gave me a warning, but I thought it was a little bit of stretch for those speeding conditions. Three miles up the road I came across the only honky tonk bar open at that time. He was looking for DRUNKS! I didn’t mind being stopped then.

As far as the other tickets go I get them ALL THE TIME and I like getting them. I believe those driving habits contribute to the deaths in the accidents I have to continually investigate.

By walkerny on Oct 2, 2008

Tim

I’ll back off you. You seem like a decent, honest guy and I have no doubt you operate in the way you state. I myself am no speed demon, I drive the conditions, and have only ever been dinged by the police on bone dry, empty, straight on roads on sunny days.

I pay the highest tax burden in New York, which pays for layer upon layer of overlapping police forces, which seem to employ over half their manpower not in fighting crime, which is high, but in terrorizing the population with concealed speed traps.

I wouldn’t even mind if they drove AMONGST us in unmarked cars and caught the true ‘bad drivers’, the aggressive, the texting, the senile, the drunk, the lazy, that cause 90% of the accidents. We see these things every day, but we never see a cop in traffic pull out and nail them for it. The cops are all at static speed traps because that is the fast, quick and easy way to run up revenue.

I do see other places with a lower police presence, and they seem to get by ok. But here in NY we have a huge police state terrorizing its own motorists, AND we fund it! Guess we deserve what we get, I’m leaving NY over this and other things as soon as my boys graduate. Only denial of taxes will kill the beast.

Police need to realize that respect for them erodes when they let themselves be tools of revenue agents and politicians. Push back!

By Tim on Oct 2, 2008

I won’t argue your point of cops and their friends. Yes, many police officers may extend that courtesy. Your interpretation was incorrect. My numbers were off the top of my head, suffice to say I let plenty of people go for no reason other than to provide a warning. As for your 200-1 number, you are WAY off. It seems every other person I stop is a cousins, sisters, best friend of that person’s grandfather whose stepbrother is a cop. I get tired of wading through this “let me go because of who I know”. I gave my own Lt’s friend TWO tickets the other night, not to be a jerk, but because of the way he was driving (two equipment, warning on the moving) and he sat there lying through his teeth about his violations.

One of my friends called me a few months ago about a relative of MINE they stopped. I told them to GIVE HIM A TICKET! The relative (nephew) hasn’t been driving long enough to do what he was doing, therefore he is never going to learn unless he pays some cash and learns I cannot and will not help him when he makes poor decisions.

As far as “it’s all about the taxes and jobs” I don’t agree. I’m not going to re-hash the same things I went through on this board and it’s associated one over the last six months. If you want to read it feel free. BTW, I watched yet another person die three nights ago. He was 18, drinking and speeding. He ejected himself out of the window.

I know what motivates me to write tickets.

By walkerny on Oct 2, 2008

So it follows that 1/4 of all people you give tickets to are cops or their friends and family? I doubt it. Based on your generosity below, that would have the breakout for you to be completely impartial. My guess is the ratio of civilians policemen pull over to cops&friends is probably 200 to 1. So unless you let 200 people go for every off duty cop you let go, you aren’t 100% impartial. Even at “3 to 1″ you are still more likely to let a cop or his family off. That doesn’t address the tickets that get ‘fixed’ out of your control.

And by the way, you ‘cannot speak for other cops’ but be HONEST, the practice of ‘professional courtesy’ is RAMPANT and a hypocritical stain on the mantra that ‘it is all about safety’. It is ALL ABOUT TAXES, and a jobs program for cops.

#

By Tim on Oct 2, 2008

I don’t speed around breaking traffic laws. I cannot speak for other cops. I follow the laws and enforce them in a fair manner.

For every ONE cop or family member I’ve given a warning to I’ve given THREE people who don’t know ANYBODY a verbal warning.

By Tim on Oct 2, 2008

I don’t speed around breaking traffic laws. I cannot speak for other cops. I follow the laws and enforce them in a fair manner.

For every ONE cop or family member I’ve given a warning to I’ve given THREE people who don’t know ANYBODY a verbal warning.

By walkerny on Oct 2, 2008

Because the Gov of NJ, like almost all cops, feel they are ’special’ when it comes to speeding and other traffic infractions. Why won’t the cops on this blog even touch the issue of ‘professional courtesy’ and ticket fixing they give each other and extend to friends & family?

HYPOCRITES!!

By Tim on Oct 1, 2008

You will have to ask him,

I didn’t vote for him, nor do I like his kind.

By Jeff on Oct 1, 2008

If traffic congestion is so prevalent in New Jersey, why was the governor driving 90 mph?

By Tim on Oct 1, 2008

Why not 70? I can’t answer that. I would guess and say that NJ in 1974 is not NJ in 2008. Congestion in Northern NJ (1974) has been steadily spreading throughout the entire State.

70 on the interstate out in Neveda or something similar, ok. Drive in N.Jersey and look at the traffic, 4-8 lanes in each direction full of cars.

By Jeff on Oct 1, 2008

New Jersey had a 70 mph speed limit prior to 1974. Why only 65 now?

By Tim on Jun 16, 2008

“they get used as the starting point for determining the infraction. If the traffic flow is 85/65 (not out of the ordinary in NY & NJ) and a car is pulled over for 90, the offense wouldn’t be 5 above the prevailing flow, it would be for driving 25 above the limit (a much more severe penalty).”

I have conversed with many NJ State Troopers via police traffic web pages. You had better watch that 85 number. I’ve seen many mention that they will write for that speed.

In addition, you can go to court for the “25 over” request a downgrade with no problem, therefore your getting the lower speed. Instead of 25 over, you get a 10-15 over, saving money and driver’s points.

Posting and adhering to one particular speed would be great, if people in this country were not conditioned for that 10 over. Now it seems many drivers want the 10 over, plus some more for when they are REALLY in a hurry. Get to that point and you’re tempting fate. Try and take it away and there would be hell to pay. This has always been a point of contention between the state representatives and the police. They are always interested in that extra miles per hour given away. This again goes back to getting the fastest drivers, rather than stopping for the 8-10 over drivers.

FYI, my police BMW is now working fine (new front tire). Before you start, it was a fair / government bid between Harley, Honda and BMW. They won fair and square!

By Baja Joes on Jun 16, 2008

********************************************
I do not believe officers are in favor of traffic light cameras. It is a result of the states legislature wanting more revenue while allowing the officers time to due other more mundane tasks. If you live long enough it is probable that you will run across an officer that is less than professional. In major metropolitan areas there is so much speeding that it is impossible to keep up with upholding the law, hence the cameras. But worse is yet to come as it will spread to interstates!!

By Seth on Jun 16, 2008

I’d never call you a hypocrite, Tim. In fact, I don’t think we’re far off from each other in our overall views. Most officers target the fastest drivers, and this is probably why I’ve not been ticketed in over 10 years, despite my driving faster than almost everyone else. The “almost” is what keeps the police from following me.

So, we seem to be in agreement that the general rule is “don’t drive faster than everyone else”. However, an unfairness I hadn’t mentioned before (because I just thought of it), is that because the signs state some static number as a legal limit, they get used as the starting point for determining the infraction. If the traffic flow is 85/65 (not out of the ordinary in NY & NJ) and a car is pulled over for 90, the offense wouldn’t be 5 above the prevailing flow, it would be for driving 25 above the limit (a much more severe penalty).

It’s basically posting one law and enforcing another that has me frustrated.

Let me know when you get your motorcycle back so I can keep an eye out for you :)

By Tim on Jun 16, 2008

I understand your worry about meeting different officers using their discretion in different ways. I would say that when you are on a particular road or within a particular jurisdiction, most officers will have a similar tolerance. The cities, towns and roads around you have reputations for certain levels of enforcement.

I mentioned in this thread that we would have to rely on the motorist to help themselves to determine what should clearly be a reasonable speed. Unfortunately many drivers just don’t pay attention for a multitude of reasons (whole other topic). Characteristics of your roadway including the type of road, traffic volume, pedestrian volume, type of area (be it residential, city, business or rural) all play into what a reasonable person should be aware of as they pass through. Sadly though, I don’t hold a lot of faith in the average driver. I’ve witnessed or have been a victim of their inability to seriously and properly keep their vehicles under control.

I have to go to work now. Don’t worry, my motorcycle is in for maintenance. I’ll be in the office all day. : )

By Tim on Jun 16, 2008

In our part of the country I’ve never stopped someone for purely 10 over. I’ve almost never seen a case come to court for 10 over (that didn’t involve something else).

You and I have driven 10 over and almost never been stopped. I know you can call me a hypocrite for “speeding”, but I won’t waste my time stopping every car for 10 over. I strongly believe that the fastest drivers are the most dangerous ones. Similarly, if I spend my time stopping every car going 10 over, I’ll rarely get the ones who I believe are posing the most danger to the rest of the motoring public. I cannot sanction this, but it allows me to perform my traffic function in a fair and equal manner.

I’m NOT going to speak for some areas. I watched one of those speeding shows and was simply amazed that a California officer wrote someone for 5 over! I couldn’t believe it, the radar is generally given +- 3 mph, so why ding someone for 2 mph over???

I also must confess I recently issued a speeding ticket for less than ten. I observed the speeding, but several citizens called in and reported him passing ON THE SHOULDER. I could have had the citizens come to court, lost work hours (two or three times while he asked for postponements) written him reckless and improper passing, but I thought it was a sure thing if I gave him the speeding because of my observations. He knew what he did and didn’t say a word to me. I had just passed a family riding their bikes in the area his was speeding down the shoulder. Hopefully the people who called it in (I met with them and took all of their information IF I needed them for court) will help out again should the need arise.

I suppose (SOME) speed limits must be set for the least capable drivers of the herd.

By Seth on Jun 16, 2008

{He pounds the police for not stopping him when he passes them by at 70/55???? The police are doing exactly what you say. They are using their judgement to say “he’s driving safely”.}

Tim,
I’m not saying that I want to be ticketed for driving 57/55 — what I want is simply to know the rules. Let’s say I pass by you driving 70/55 and you determine that my speed is safe, but then 10 miles down the road - under identical conditions - another officer pulls me over. Will my explanation that “the first officer thought my speed was fine 10 miles ago” get me out of a ticket with this second officer?

By Tim on Jun 16, 2008

“If that is the case, then you need to present the actual city and time frame for evidence so that it can be examined because it does not fit with evidence gathered from exogenous sources.”………………….

Sorry, I don’t have the authority to provide these reports. Each one is about three inches thick and couldn’t be easily posted here. I was there, I wrote most of the reports.

“Is not the better solution in this case to re-engineer the crossing?”…………………………

If we scream any louder to the state I think our lungs will burst! They will not deal with it because of the prohibitively high cost of doing so. Regardless of that, the speeders on this road SHOULD be reasonable and prudent, but they are not. They are regularly given 15+ mph over the limit, but they want more.

“The most often check boxes are those to do with speed because LEOs know that checking that box is politically safe and in the absence of compelling contrary evidence use it as a default “cause.”……………………………

This is completely wrong. We conduct more than 2,000 crash investigations a year ranging from minor to bad. The item most selected is “driver inattention” by a FAR margin.

“You can refuse to cite drivers who are over the posted limit but well within the capabilities of the reasonable driver, vehicle and roadway.”

I thought this is what I said we were doing? I understand that the speed limits are SET and that’s it, but fortunately many police officers do what you are saying. They look at what’s reasonable and safe, then work from there. At some point you have to agree that cars driving through certain conditions MUST slow down (not under the limit, more like a reasonable speed). Look at your other posters talking at the 55 mph idea (which I am against). He pounds the police for not stopping him when he passes them by at 70/55???? The police are doing exactly what you say. They are using their judgement to say “he’s driving safely”. He makes reference to them doing nothing. You are damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Police don’t set limits and have absolutely no power when it comes to influencing governments to change them. Yes, police can refuse to enforce speed limits that appear unfair. It happens more times than you think.

We are both knocking at the same house. You’re at the front, and I’m at the back. We have associates on both sides who are much more zealous in their view of our topic.

By James Young on Jun 15, 2008

Tim writes:

{I know there are many animals on the internet that would purposely make these kinds of statements, but I can only say that if you have any kindling of a spark of belief, believe me when I tell you they are true.}

What you reference here is unclear. I am assuming that you refer to my distrust of your anecdotal stories. If that is the case, then you need to present the actual city and time frame for evidence so that it can be examined because it does not fit with evidence gathered from exogenous sources.

{One of my last crashes (not speed related) was a woman struck by a car crossing a busy five lane road. The road is grossly under engineered and outdated, BUT it is also one of the places I catch my worst speeders.}

Is not the better solution in this case to reengineer the crossing? Of course, it is but the usual response is to lower the limit and amplify enforcement, which we know from years of experience do not work.

{As for the government reports and studies. . . The information is gathered through a series of choices/blocks on the report which attempts to lay fault in the crash. Unfortunately you can only choose one. You choose the one that best fits the crash, regardless of all of the other factors. The reports are passed up the line (everyone in the state does the same form) and are [cannibalized] by someone working for the state. This information is passed on to the Federal Government or whoever is using it to conduct their own studies. The problem is, the further you get away from the initial crash investigator the harder it is to discern all of the elements of the crash. No one reads every report, they look at the cause number and move it into a nice column for that specific reason.}

Several observations: Some states provide “Other” as a choice with space for explanation. In any case, explanatory information can be put into the body of the report. The most often check boxes are those to do with speed because LEOs know that checking that box is politically safe and in the absence of compelling contrary evidence use it as a default “cause.” Even given the overuse of those boxes and the distillation of data by NHTSA, an openly anti-speed organization, NHTSA data do not support excessive speed as the killer portrayed in their verbiage. NHTSA data are a mixed bag because, while they are census-type data rather than samples, their source (police reports) is openly biased and they carefully avoid assigning causation by using the “xxxx-related” category, i.e., “alcohol-related” or “speed-related.” As an example of the efficacy of their data, consider what is missing: NHTSA has no category called “suicide,” yet we know for a certainty that people do commit suicide by driving into immovable objects. Different independent studies have estimated that suicide comprises anywhere from 4% to 16% of all fatalities.

{I was honest adding the snow and alcohol. I have several more from last year alone. I also prepared a year end report that gives an exact percentage of speed related fatals for 2007. I’ll get it when I go back to work next week and give you the exact number.}

I’d rather have the whole report.

{ . . .but [police officers] are left no option.}

You do have an option, several in fact. You can lobby for rational laws that concentrate on policies (laws) that actually have a correlation to improving key safety measures. You can concentrate on improving traffic flow rather than slowing everybody down. You can focus on impeders rather than speeders. You can refuse to cite drivers who are over the posted limit but well within the capabilities of the reasonable driver, vehicle and roadway. In Montana, 100 mph was considered R&P. Others states should implement similar plans. You could call for LE efficacy to be measured by changes in the 3 key safety measures rather than by motorist contacts or citations issued. You could call for removing all of the ancillary charges to traffic citations, 17 additional “funds” in San Diego according to a recent radio report. It is a very difficult thing to change one’s whole philosophy and view of the world. I challenge all you guys to show us just how tough you really are.

{ I do write more speeding tickets than most other violations, (except seatbelts). I had to think about it. It’s not easier to write speeders (more paperwork than a regular ticket) it’s not easier to testify (much, much more knowledge required for testimony) and I have to keep multiple, updated proofs for court that aren’t required AT ALL for other violations. Then why [do] I write more? I came to the conclusion that you have a greater exposure to the speeding ticket because your violation is much longer.}

Your observation that speeding provides greater exposure is correct. Unfortunately, we have spent billions on speeding while there is no correlation between “speeding” and the 3 key safety measures, therefore, there is no causation. In simpler terms, changing speed limits or drivers’ choices of speeds has no effect, IOW it is a worthless endeavor.

The 3 key safety measures are (1) the crash-rate, (2) the injury-rate, and (3) the fatality-rate, each per 100,000,000 VMT (vehicle miles traveled).

By Tim on Jun 13, 2008

I know there are many animals on the internet that would purposely make these kinds of statements, but I can only say that if you have any kindling of a spark of belief, believe me when I tell you they are true.

My heart aches each time I think of them, especially the child who tried to wake up his mother. I was the investigator in each case mentioned. The woman had a fist size whole in the left temple area of her head. She was Asian with long, black beautiful hair that was flowing over her left face as her body was positioned with the head leaning out of her driver’s window. I didn’t see the damage at first. I was pre-occupied with the tree she struck. It was sturdy and did not move a bit. The minivan was very much in tact and I wondered why I was there that morning. I was about to lean on the tree to look into the car when I noticed the gelatin like substance on the tree in the approximate area of the driver. I looked closer and suddenly realized what it was. I moved her hair aside and saw the damage to her head. I scanned backward into the cabin and saw all of the child seats. I hoped they had faired better than the driver.

When I arrived at the hospital I attempted to speak with the father. He was sitting off to the side with his hands in his face crying. He never came out of that position for the hour I was there. The three children were climbing up and down several chairs, playing and laughing. The one who had the most injuries (mostly cuts and bruises) was the one who made the statement to me. I did everything I could not to cry.

I never minded looking at dead people before. When I began as a fatal accident investigator it opened up another side. Part of my job is to meet with and ascertain what the people were doing before the crash. I also make all notifications and handle the complete investigations, keeping in close contact with the families the entire time. I provide them my personal cell phone so they can call anytime. The bodies that never bothered me before (ten years in patrol) now became very real people with lives and families.

It’s now harder than ever to disassociate yourself. One of my last crashes (not speed related) was a woman struck by a car crossing a busy five lane road. The road is grossly under engineered and outdated, BUT it is also one of the places I catch my worst speeders. She went through the windshield of a car as she was crossing the road. She was poor, had no family and probably (was) missed by very few people, if anyone. She lived in a hotel room were she took public transportation back and forth to the nearby city. I noticed her dirty shirt with a poodle stitched on it. I imagined that she picked it up in a thrift store because she thought it was pretty. Her seedy hotel (one of many) on a specific side of the roadway causes these people to make dashes across five lanes in order to catch a bus that travels eastbound. There’s no two ways about it, YOU HAVE TO CROSS THIS ROAD. All I ever asked from drivers is that they give the pedestrians a chance. The limit is 45, but I regularly get speeds of 65-75 mph. The pedestrian usually get stuck in the center turn lane of the five because of the heavy traffic. I cringe watching them stand there so vulnerable in the roadway. I am merciless to people speeding through this area. I’ll generally give you over 60 in the 45 before I write. I try to get the fastest speeders and to be fair to the motoring public. If drivers on this road keep to a reasonable speed they MAY have a chance of stopping (stopping distance is directly associated with speed no matter how you cut it) before they strike the pedestrians.

As for the government reports and studies. Let me tell you I write thousands of these crash reports, from fatals to simple parking lot crashes. The information is gathered through a series of choices/blocks on the report which attempts to lay fault in the crash. Unfortunately you can only choose one. You choose the one that best fits the crash, regardless of all of the other factors. The reports are passed up the line (everyone in the state does the same form) and are catabolized by someone working for the state. This information is passed on to the Federal Government or whoever is using it to conduct their own studies. The problem is, the further you get away from the initial crash investigator the harder it is to discern all of the elements of the crash. No one reads every report, they look at the cause number and move it into a nice column for that specific reason.

1. Mom’s crash. Purely too fast on partially snow covered road. Speed main factor
2. Man who was to be a father. Purely too fast and had been consuming alcohol
3. Man driving home from work. Speed only, main factor….69/40 (from data recorder)
4. Man hit light signal. Speed only factor, left roadway.

I was honest adding the snow and alcohol. I have several more from last year alone. I also prepared a year end report that gives an exact percentage of speed related fatals for 2007. I’ll get it when I go back to work next week and give you the exact number.

I live and work in a state that is no where near any of the big western (read wide open) states. Our area is one of the most congested in the country with some of the oldest roads. There is no money to fix the roads to make them safer for the cars “that can drive faster”. The evolution of our highway system has not kept pace with the evolution of our autos.

I hate the fact that the insurance companies pound their customers and that the state double dips via the fine and the surcharges, but we are left no option. I got out of my way to help anyone who comes to court (if they want it). If someone consciously chooses to speed, then I have less mercy as compared to the person who cannot pass inspection because they have no money to fix their old car that has some obscure problem. Even then I give a wide berth to the speeders. Considering I am the worst, (for lack of a better term) officer to meet when it comes to writing speeding tickets, shows we (police in my state) are lenient as a whole.

Your talk on speeding in different parts of Texas makes my point exactly. If you install speed cameras you take away the discretion the officer may have to choose the areas he knows as bad or to take into account the size, design of road and time of day the violator is driving. These are all things I look at. The speeds around our area are generally the same, BUT I do not enforce them exactly the same. If the road is wooded, with no intersections, homes or businesses then I allow a greater tolerance for speeding. Conversely, if a different road with the same limit is poorly designed, over burdened with traffic, businesses or cross streets then I lower my tolerance. I would expect a normal person to be able to recognize the difference.

One more thought for a long post. I do write more speeding tickets than most other violations, (except seatbelts). I had to think about it. It’s not easier to write speeders (more paperwork than a regular ticket) it’s not easier to testify (much, much more knowledge required for testimony) and I have to keep multiple, updated proofs for court that aren’t required AT ALL for other violations. Then why to I write more? I came to the conclusion that you have a greater exposure to the speeding ticket because your violation is much longer. If you are speeding down a ten mile road your exposure is much greater than if you momentarily ran a red light, rolled through a stop sign, failed to signal a turn or cut someone off. That’s the only thing I could think of.

When you purchase your cars look for SIDE AND CURTAIN airbags. Also look for STABILITY CONTROL, not traction control. Stability control is a non-driver interactive device that allows the car to self correct a yaw when lateral stability is lost (skid sideways). This goes toward to the side and curtain airbags. When all else fails they will deploy giving you some protection at the weakest part of your vehicle (the side).

Good luck, I hope I never meet any of you! : )

By Hubcap on Jun 13, 2008

Tim says:
“On average for the last 4 years these crashes have occurred every FIVE weeks in a City of 50,000. That’s about 40 bodies…”

Wow, that seems like a lot. That is getting close to the kind of traffic fatality rate one would expect to find in a major metro area with millions of people.

All the accidents you cited were single-vehicle loss-of-control; it seems like there may be more going on than just speeding. And the fact that you have bodies piling up that fast kind of proves that writing speeding tickets isn’t fixing the problem.

That said, I also want to say I certainly respect that you do what you working with the surviors of those tragic crashes; it is a selfless and honorable act.

By James Young on Jun 13, 2008

Tim writes:

{Problem is, we haven’t improved OUR driving skills.}

So what? We now have more drivers and vehicles driving faster speeds on more than ever before and the key safety measures (see footnote 1) just keep getting better every year, so something right is happening. There is no correlation between speeds, speed limits or the level of enforcement and those key safety measures. NONE.

{I’ll certainly give you that, but MANY roads HAVE had their speeds increased to 65,70 and 75 mph, yet people still whine when they are caught speeding.}

As well they should. Why should drivers be punished for performing perfectly reasonable behavior? Speeds that would have once been considered reckless in West Texas (I-10 & I-20) are now legal. As I-40 leaves New Mexico and enters Texas, the speed limit drops from 75 to 70 mph, even though the roadway arguably gets better; 75 is legal in NM but will and does yield a citation in Texas under the same conditions. Where is the reasoning in that?

{You can read what you want off of your “list” or “study” but my view is first hand, right there, looking at the destroyed lives. YES, speed will ALWAYS be a factor in a crash.}

It isn’t my list. It comes from NHTSA, which gathers data from many different sources of which the primary one is police reports. So it’s actually a cops’ list. Even given the skewed source and the skew intent of NHTSA, they still cannot prove the case that higher speeds cause more crashes. Again, the totality of information says that higher speeds are producing fewer crashes and fewer fatalities per VMT. Further, it is tautological to assert that “speed” is a factor in crashes because every vehicle in motion has a certain speed.

Emotional snippets omitted because (1) I don’t believe them, (2) the information is insufficient to determine what “. . .too fast . . .” means, and (3) emotional appeals now fall on deaf ears because they have been overworked for 60 years.

However, I believe that we both seek the same goal: safer travel. I used to work in the emergency room of a major trauma hospital that served about 9 counties at that time, so I saw all kinds of horrible things that only solidified my resolve to make automobile travel safer. However, my academic training and point of view led me use the evidence rather than emotion to make policy decisions. Far too much of our law is based on emotion rather than reason and science. Further law enforcement has poorly served us not because of what they don’t know but because what they know for sure just ain’t so. (Thanks to Mark Twain).

{People would like to think that there is ONE smoking gun in a crash. There rarely is. Circumstances collide at a point in time when everything is just right to cause a catrastrophic crash. Speed can ALWAYS play a part, just like wearing you seatbelt, paying attention, not talking on your cell phone etc…. To dismiss speeding as not being a causation factor is wrong.}

“Speeding” is merely exceeding the posted limit. Nothing more, nothing less. “Speed too fast for conditions” is a quantum difference from ‘speeding” because it arises from physical laws and limits while “speeding” arises from the arbitrary decision of man. Do not confuse them. Do not purposely conflate them as has the safety lobby for 60 years. “Speeding” does not cause crashes. “Speed too fast for conditions” MAY be a contributing factor. 60 mph down the western side of Vail Pass on I-70 is perfectly legal but may be too fast for conditions in a ice storm. OTOH, 90 mph across I-70 in eastern Colorado is illegal but is still perfectly reasonable in clear, dry conditions. What does CSP look for? They guy running 90 mph safely all the while ignoring the guy running 5 under the limit but 30 mph over reasonable.

{You’re never going to convince me that issuing speeding tickets is the wrong thing.}

It isn’t up to me to convince anybody that speeding tickets is the wrong thing but rather up to those that claim a positive correlation to prove that speeding citations are the right thing to do, that is, that the issuance of speeding cites has a quantifiable and predictable effect on traffic safety. It does not and the safety lobby has been unable to make that positive case for over 60 years.

{Each time you deal with these VICTIMS you loose a little more. You cannot justify or convince yourself that they deserved it. I write them for safety sake, NEVER THE MONEY.}

I don’t doubt your sincerity; I doubt your reasoning. While I have heard many, many LEOs make the above claim, somehow all those speeding citations turn close to a hundred billion dollars a year over to governmental agencies. In any economic transaction, the money always leads to the truth.

By walkerny on Jun 13, 2008

If you are a cop who doesn’t speed then you are one of the few, and I have and had many cops as friends, acquaintance or fellow reservists. They all will PISS and moan about that time someone didn’t extend professional courtesy.

As for being in unmarked cares, they are out there. And out of uniform? Work in tandem, one car in civvies spots and reports to another who pulls the offender over. I see uniformed cops working speed traps that way (and so have you). I’ve seen the cop well hidden with radar and some measure down the highway you will see 1, 2, even 4 cars ready to pounce. Pull the trigger and reel them in. Easy.

Again, speed is one of MANY causes of accidents but the easy to turn into a revenue generator. The others require a cop to move unobserved and catch the moronic, the aggressive, the distracted, and the lazy.

But it isn’t about safety it is about revenue. And it is getting more and more so all the time, with public respect falling.

In NY state, the insurance companies were paying the law enforcement agencies to increase ticket writing. They call it a donation, but it is a bribe.

I’ve respected cops all my life but if I see a traffic cop with a flat, I hope there is a big puddle right on my way.