Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras

caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"

Comments

The police ought to follow the law.

[Etherwalk]

Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[setirw]

Did you not see the middle sentence? "They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest."

And yes, firetrucks or ambulances should not be exempt if they are not responding to an emergency, which was the original poster's point. A police car should not be exempt if its driver is getting more donuts, but should be exempt if it's responding to a call.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[technothrasher]

Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent.

At least here in Massachusetts, this is true only if they are responding to an emergency and they are on duty. If they do it for any other reason, it's illegal. Link

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[GiovanniZero]

A quick story.

One night I was coming home late and stopped at a Red light. A police car pulled up opposite me waited a moment then hit his lights and ran the light. He immediately turned them off and sped up. I was young and stupid so I pulled a U-turn and followed him. He was definitely speeding and all my youthful angst was sure he was just in a hurry to get home everyone else is.

He was pretty far ahead of me when he turned off the road. I turned into the neighborhood that he'd gone into. I spotted three stopped cop cars, lights off, parked on the street. I didn't know what to think when finally saw the cops.

One was carrying an M-16 and the other two were armed with shotguns, I saw them doing quick hand signals before darting off into the neighborhood in opposite directions.

I kept on driving and decided it was better not to worry too much about the cops pulling privilege because, at least in this case, they had a good reason.

Maybe a cop runs a red light because he's lazy or maybe he runs one because he's following a suspect car. I'd rather let the cops have leeway and discretion in this matter.

Cops see suspicious cars all the time. Maybe they're driving strangely, whatever, the point is that they need to have the freedom to investigate.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[setirw]

Well... There are fewer people killed by ambulances than there are people saved by ambulances.

Applying your strict utilitarian logic elsewhere, firetrucks and police cars shouldn't have the right to disobey traffic rules if the fire endangers fewer people than disobeying traffic rules does.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[gardyloo]

Was there a Krispy Kreme in that neighborhood?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Seumas]

That's because she was a pirate.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

>There's 1 dude in the back of an ambulance, why should that 1 dude have the right to endanger the lives of countless motorists and pedestrians just so he can save himself?

Because the ambulance driver is certified to be safe at the higher speeds and is trained in "illegal" driving maneuvers so that he will not collide with anything (except when purposely and safely plowing stopped vehicles out of the way). He also has no tickets or criminal record, ever (most ambulance services are careful to verify this) and, one must assume, is therefore capable of following the law.

Which is all to say that, no, they don't endanger the lives of others at the expense of their passenger because they are specially trained not to. And no, you can't take those courses and have a perfect license and violate traffic laws because violating them causes chaos. Chaos that is acceptable to save a life, if it is controlled and safe. Chaos like that is NOT acceptable because you a late for work. I suppose if you took those courses and had the appropriate safety gear on your car (like lights and siren and special brakes and engine) AND you were transporting a nearly dead passenger, yeah, that would be ok. But that's not your plan, is it? :)

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost ALL police abuse the law when on duty. EVERY SINGLE squad car I ever see is always speeding. And sorry they all dont have somewhere to be at 5-10 mph over the speed limit.

Cops should be FIRED for breaking the law.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[morari]

More so, those in a position of power (police officers, politicians, etc.) should face an even more severe punishment for breaking the law than your Average Joe. They have more responsibility and are (at least theoretically) suppose to be looked up to as a pillar of society.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[setirw]

Sure. Here are some NHTSA data. A total number of 300 fatal crashes from 1991-2002 killed 275 occupants of other vehicles. Since we're discounting the "one dude in the ambulance," I won't factor in the 82 ambulance occupants killed in those 300 fatal crashes over a 11 year period into my figure. 275 fatalities over 11 years is certainly less than the tens to hundreds of thousands saved by ambulances each year.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ahodgson]

They're objecting to being caught when not on a call, no lights, no sirens, etc. I know when it's safe to run a red light, too. Surely I should be exempt from ticketing if they are.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Qzukk]

Theres a logical solution to this, given that for every ambulance causing an injury accident, another will have to respond. Therefore, unless more than 50% of the ambulances are disabled in wrecks, there will ALWAYS be more ambulances operating than in wrecks.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ari_j]

Here's my rule: If the lights aren't flashing, every law applies just as it would to me. If the lights are flashing, then a radio call is mandatory to have a record of why they're flashing and all traffic laws are suspended so long as you drive within reason given the circumstances. But if the lights aren't flashing, follow the laws.

We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. As soon as certain men are exempt from laws because of their status as government officers, we're a nation of men. That's bad.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

But we were having so much fun disregarding reason and logic!

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you have some data....

I have some data.

First, a friend of mine was stopped at a red light on Market street in San Francisco. It was near some theaters, so the light may have been hard to pick out among all the neon, but SHE saw it and stopped.

A moment later, she was rear-ended by a cop who saw neither the light nor her ENTIRE CAR. He started backing up, taking her bumper with him, then started forward, but stopped short of ramming her again.

When she got out and told him to call the police, he said, "I'm the police." She called bullshit on him and said he was not going to investigate his own accident.

Another friend was slowing down in the right-hand lane, turning into a burger place. He also was rear-ended by a cop with no lights or siren. The cop tried the "silent response" trick on him. Again, the cop was told he was not going to investigate his own accident and had to comply.

The really moronic part is that, even if lights and siren had been going, my friend was already in the curb lane and would not have been obliged to drive up onto the sidewalk to get out of the cop's way.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[cloak42]

so why shouldn't they be allowed to run them?

Because when an ambulance or firetruck does it, their sirens are on and they're responding to a call. Any other time, they follow the rules of the road, same as everybody else.

And when that police cruiser's lights are on, you bet your ass I'm going to get out of its way and let it run whatever lights it damn well pleases. But if the lights aren't on, that cop had better be sitting his ass behind me in line waiting for the light to turn green, just like everybody else on the road does.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[crosstalk]

Yes they ought to follow the law, My cousin was broadsided when an officer ran a red light, with no sirens and no lights, just had a stupid moment, ran the light and broadsided her car. broker her pelvis in 4 places, an emergency c-section, and still walks with a limp to this day. Is it to much to ask that they follow the laws like everyone else when not in an emergency?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, we have absolute no way of knowing what was going on. Perhaps they were hunting for a very large deer. To me, whether to use lights and sirens in an emergency is based on the situation and I'm willing to give leeway here.

However, if there is no emergency, there should be no need to endanger the public at large. I can't see any reason for a cop to run a red light in order to give a parking ticket to that guy who parks in front of my driveway. I don't care if it's 2:55AM and the roads are empty and the cop gets off at 3:00AM--if I can't do it, they can't do it.

From TFA:

"I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."

Well, anything can happen on "some calls." However, a dispatcher has spoken with the person who made the call and, I assume, made a determination whether something was an emergency or not. It is not the police officer's job to second-guess the dispatcher and decide whether or not a call should be an emergency.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I mean, we wouldn't allow law enforcement to break burglary laws, just because they have a "warrant", right? So, we either have to take away the right of the police to make arrests on private property, or allow record labels to hire security personnel to do the same to suspected file sharers.

I think that most people would agree that a warrant, properly issued by a judge, is a compelling reason for police to break the laws aginst breaking and entering. (Or rather, the probable cause which leads to the warrant being issued is the compelling reason; the warrant is the law's certification that such a reason exists.) But GP is spot on -- without such reasons (warrants for entering people's homes, 911 calls for running through red lights, etc.) police have to obey the law like everybody else. In fact, I would argue that police, on or off duty, but especially on, who break the law should be punished more harshly than regular folks. Same for judges, DA's, and others* whose duty it is to enforce the law. Quis custodiet ipso custodes -- if the people who are watching the rest of us aren't watched themselves, they turn into the most dangerous kind of criminal.

*There is one individual who, in the US system, is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of Federal law. When that individual breaks the law in a way which leads to the death of others, the penalties should be the harshest which the law can inflict. But that's a whole 'nother argument waiting to happen.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[The_Wilschon]

You misunderstand the GP, who is not wrong. A distinction must be made between a de jure double standard, that is, a law which makes a distinction between police and non-police, and a de facto double standard, that is, a society in which the police do not follow the written law.

The GP referred to a de facto double standard, which I agree, and I think you will too, we must not have. You refer to a de jure double standard, and say we must have one. I agree with this also, and strongly suspect that the GP does also, particularly based on the GP's language about amending the law when there is compelling evidence that police exemptions are in the public interest. He says (as I understand it) that where there is need for a double standard, it must be a de jure double standard, and not a de facto double standard.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[networkBoy]

FWIW, if you have a critically wounded person in your car usually you do not receive a ticket.
One of three things usually happens:
Most common: Officer calls for an ambulance, you follow to the hospital (though without breaking any more laws).
Second: Officer moves victim to squad car, bolts to hospital. You follow, again, without breaking any more traffic laws.
Third: Officer says "oh shit" and gives you a red& blue escort to the hospital.

I've encountered the first and third personally. Both times I was the driver, neither time was I cited for obvious traffic violations.
-nB

If you're interested, one was a crossbow bolt that may have ruptured the femoral artery (that's the escort one, as moving the person seemed to be the greater risk, the other incident was a displaced fracture of the forearm.
-nB

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[AK Marc]

They're trained to know when it is safe to run red lights and when it is not.. so why shouldn't they be allowed to run them?

If and only if the public in general is allowed to take the same training and also be exempt from red lights. Unless that happens, no matter what training they get or such, it is still the police being exempt from laws they enforce in others, and inequity that generates contempt for authority.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Bretai]

"the absence of evidence..."

That phrase has always bothered me. The absence of evidence, assuming one has looked, *is* evidence of absence. It's just not proof of absence. In the same way that circumstantial evidence is still evidence although it may not be conclusive. We use this in science all the time when we look for some evidence that we expect to be there. When it's absent, that tells us something.

So, this isn't good enough for you? Ok, but it's customary to say why not. I think that particular cliché does us a disservice.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[QuantumG]

that generates contempt for authority. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[shaitand]

'No, but the absence of lurid CNN reports is pretty good evidence of absence, you pedantic cockjockey.'

The only thing the absence of CNN reports is evidence of is the absence of CNN coverage. By your logic third party presidential candidates don't exist because major news outlets refuse to cover them.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[NormalVisual]

Which is why the state laws are written to keep this kind of hooliganism down and hopefully prevent these accidents.

Of course, that depends on the police having to police themselves, and that often just doesn't happen because of the bullshit "brotherhood" thing.

Case in point - I have a friend of mine whose husband is a cop. A few years ago, she was out driving drunk with her pre-school daughter in the car (as she'd done a few times before and for which she'd gotten a bitching at from me) and got pulled over. She told the cop that pulled her over who her husband was. The officer on the scene called the husband on his cell phone (to keep it off the radio logs) and he came to the scene. End result - he took her home in his squad car, dropped her off, and picked up a friend to get her car - no ticket, no real consequences at all. A few weeks later, she was out driving loaded again (with the kid again, no less) and totalled the car (thankfully no one was hurt), but she spent a week in jail because *that* time it was in another jurisdiction and the cop that responded was actually looking out for the public's safety, followed the law, and told her husband to kiss off when he tried to get him to drop the charges. Even though she's my friend, I personally think she should have gone to jail for the first offense, and gone for a time long enough for her to understand the seriousness of it - more than the piddling week she got for the second one. I also think every cop involved in the first offense (her husband included) should face sanctions for their actions - no regular citizen would have been afforded the courtesy of being let go, and it's clearly not in the public's best interest to be letting drunk drivers off without charging them.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[modecx]

Fuck that. I do not want any more people under the delusion that politicians are meant to be leaders or moral guides. They are employees hired to run the country. They can be depraved ex-child molesters for all I care, so long as they do their jobs properly.

Alright, bub... Which congress-critter are you? Mmmm???

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Yeah, because ambulance drivers are the real problem with this country, right Comrade?

I actually work at a hospital and have lost count of all the times the ambulance drivers have tortured me for just shits and giggles.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[eric76]

In one city using photo-radar in the early 90s, all photos of police speeding were sent to the traffic sergeant.

If the officer wasn't on a legitimate, logged call at the moment, they got quite an ass chewing and a black mark in their personnel file.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[RealGrouchy]

I hear that.

Police and corrections officers are almost never charged (much less convicted and sentenced) with criminal offences for brutality and other illegal things they do while on duty.

It seems that if they have a decent job working for the state, a harshly-worded letter or a disciplinary hearing is enough for them, and they may actually face some sort of a penalty (usually suspension, demotion, or in severe cases, losing their job).

Meanwhile, your average Joe does the same thing and he loses his job AND goes to jail (after which he will be unable to get a decent job ever again).

- RG>

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Kichigai Mentat]

Wow. I don't normally say this, but that has to be one of the DUMBEST comments I've ever read in my entire life, and I read QuickJump!

You know how ambulances have those twirly lighty things on the top (you know, emergency flashers)? And they have those loud noisy things (emergency klaxons), the kind loud enough to overpower your average car stereo from a good distance away? They exist to WARN people to GET OUT OF THE WAY OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE HIT BY A RATHER MASSIVE VEHICLE MOVING AT HIGH SPEEDS.

Further more, all emergency vehicles have these flashers and klaxons. The light color is used to signify what kind of priority this vehicle has (though your average motorist hasn't a clue). Also, these vehicles have strobe lights on them to trigger certain events at stop lights. They activate a bright white light and turn the other light (the one perpendicular to the vehicle) to red.

The guys who design these vehicles aren't nitwits. They know that they could cause more damage than most other cars on the road (except 18-wheelers). All these lights and sounds are in place to prevent this. So, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that more people are saved in ambulances than are killed by them. Besides, what gives me the right to make my left hand turn RIGHT NOW, and make somebody's (sibling/parent/child/grandchild/grandparent/signi ficant other/friend/complete stranger) have to wait to get to the hospital to save their life? I'll pull off to the side of the road, turn off the car, get out, and sit on the sidewalk to let an ambulance past. Unless you're in an emergency vehicle, NOBODY has any reason that they need to be that impatient. If you're late to something, that's your own fault. If you disagree, wait until it's your (sibling/parent/child/grandchild/grandparent/signi ficant other/friend) in the back of that ambulance, and then tell me how you feel.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[hexmem]

Oh yes it is their job to second-guess dispatch. I'm a firefighter and dispatch gets it wrong ALL THE TIME.

For example: Two months ago our department was paged out for a roof collapse. Supposedly ice build-up on the roof had caused it to cave in over the master bedroom. When we got there the roof was completely intact. The real reason we were paged out? The homeowner was afraid a big chunk of ice was going to fall off the roof and break a basement window.

During a real emergency it can get even worse because the people who called 911 (dispatch) are panicking and freaking out.

As for cops running red lights... I'm all for it. I've run them plenty of times in the fire truck. Under Utah law, it's allowed, as long as you don't further endanger the public.

http://www.code-co.com/utah/code/04/41-06_p1.htm#T 41-6-14

(2) The operator of an authorized emergency vehicle may:

(a) park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter;

(b) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;

(c) exceed the maximum speed limits; or

(d) disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[d474]

I did that once while driving home at 1 am.

I was at a red light for about 4 minutes...a long line of cars formed behind me. After 6 minutes total waiting for the light to change and NO CARS had driven by - I cautiously ran the red light.

Of course, the last car in the line behind me was a cop. He acted pissed off at me. I explained to him that I had been sitting at the light for 6 minutes (I had listened to 2 songs on the radio!) - and he didn't give a shit.

I asked him how long I'm supposed to wait until I determine the light is not functioning as it should - and he said "If it's red you don't proceed."

What an asshole - just like a politician - completely avoids the subjectivity of reality.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[masterzora]

Does my 4 digit UID give me the right to smack you down for suggesting that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence?

No, because you would be wrong in saying it. The phrase you are looking for is "absence of proof is not proof of absence". As it turns out, the absence of evidence being evidence of absence is one of the bases of scientific reasoning.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[SuperQ]

Does my 4 digit UID give me the right to smack you down for suggesting that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence? Yes.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Cops see suspicious cars all the time. Maybe they're driving strangely, whatever, the point is that they need to have the freedom to investigate. As someone who gets a DWB around once a year, I'd like to see MORE not less restrictions on their "freedom to investigate."

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[R3d M3rcury]

I'm a firefighter and dispatch gets it wrong ALL THE TIME. Then it's time to complain about the dispatcher getting it wrong rather than say, "Well, they might have gotten it wrong, so I'll endanger others just in case they did."

By the way, your example works to the opposite. Yes, if a roof had collapsed, you should get there posthaste which is what the dispatcher told you. So I assume you did. Good for you. On the other hand, would it have been acceptable for you to say, "Oh, that dispatcher is always full of shit. We'll drive slowly and carefully," and arrive at the site and discover that the dispatcher had been correct all along?

To me, the dispatcher is the person who knows the most about what is going on and is able to judge how much of an "emergency" exists. If they err, they should err on the side of caution and that's fine. I have no problem with an officer who is responding to what he or she has been told is an emergency rushing to the scene. If that includes making illegal U-turns or running a red light, that's fine. If, after doing these things, they arrive and discover that no emergency exists, they certainly shouldn't be culpable for their illegal activities.

But if there's no emergency, there is no reason for police or firefighters to be deciding otherwise and break the law.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[geoskd]

Applying your strict utilitarian logic elsewhere, firetrucks and police cars shouldn't have the right to disobey traffic rules if the fire endangers fewer people than disobeying traffic rules does.

No, what the OP is getting at, is that if the probable harm from running the light is greater than the probable harm from the fire, then the truck should not run the light. It is however a pretty safe bet that fire represents a much greater probable harm under almost all circumstances. Ambulances sometimes abuse the authority to run lights just to make the passengers feel like more is being done. With police, the same is true, which is why the dispatcher makes the decision as to the seriousness of the call. The idea is to prevent the police from putting anyone at greater risk than is necessary. It is not the officers place to determine the severity of the situation until they are actually on the scene.

-=Geoskd

Mixed views

[nebaz]

On the one hand, I'm glad that cops will be forced to obey the law, and not think they are above it. There are cops in my town who park in the fire lane all day.

    On the other hand, I really detest red light cameras. They basically operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, sometimes they get you on yellow. Most of the time, they are designed for profit (I've heard companies that manufacture these are often paid per conviction, thus increasing incentive for abuse), not public safety.

    Where I live, the traffic cameras are not placed at the most dangerous intersections, but at the ones they think will generate the most revenue for the city. Gines are more than $350 per offense, and go as a point (4 in a year can mean suspension) on your license.

    I think my hatred of these red light cameras outweigh my delight about the police getting their ironic comeuppance. I think they should be banned.

Unbiased? I think not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Red-light cameras don't take into account that there are good reasons to run through red lights. Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time. What if there is rain or snow on the ground? You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.

At least if a human cop sees you run a red light for a reason, you can explain that to him and he can let you go. The cameras are unforgiving. They are totally biased, because they assume if the camera catches you, you are in the wrong. That's not always the case.

Camerals not allowed in Minnesota

[Thunderstruck]

Minnesota's highest court recently struck down the use of these cameras, as practiced in the Twin Cities, because the ticket automatically charged the owner of the car, without concern for whether they were actually driving or not when the picture was taken.

Red Light Cameras

My thanks to the fire department

[MoxFulder]

While the police seem to be objecting to this policy for no good reason, it sounds like the Dallas Fire Department accepts that they are subject to the same law as everyone else. From TFA:

For the fire department, it's much more cut-and-dried, said Lt. Joel Lavender, a Dallas Fire-Rescue spokesman.

"We don't really have a lot of business running lights, period," Lt. Lavender said. "If you mess up and you're not on an emergency run, you get a ticket. They're subject to the same penalty, in addition to being punished by the fire department."

Good on 'em!

Re:Unbiased? I think not.

[PhxBlue]

Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.

Speeding.

What if there is rain or snow on the ground?

Unsafe driving for conditions.

You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.

Good point. Of course, having the photo as evidence would help you when you go to court to contest the ticket.

It gets better

[overshoot]

The city of Scottsdale, AZ installed speed cameras on a stretch of State Route 101. The stretch is one of the deadliest in the State, with fatal single-vehicle wrecks at well over 100 mph.

However, in the course of a disagreement between Scottsdale and the State, use of the cameras to generate citations was stopped but the data was still collected for analysis by a local professor. It seems that during that time, a lot of law-enforcement cruisers were caught going far over the limit without lights, etc.

On top of that (IIRC) there was a wreck a bit ago involving a private vehicle and law enforcement; needless to say, the private driver was cited by the cop. Said private driver's attorney subpoena'd the speed cameras and guess what?

I've also heard of other cities where the red-light cameras where police involved in wrecks at intersections wrote up the other party only to have the camera results subpoena'd and turn the tables. Fine by me -- a red-light camera would have saved me a lot of time and expense several years ago.

IMHO you can argue speed cameras either way but red lights should just plain have recorders, period.

Great. "Equal protection" will then...

[msauve]

allow me to do exactly the same thing.

The only time an officer should be able to violate traffic law with impunity is when it is required for performance of their public duty. (i.e. a pursuit, or when responding to an emergency situation)

Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then...

[dan828]

You should also add "when it is safe to do so." A few months ago, at an intersection next to the building where I work, a policeman went through a red light with his lights and sirens going, but did so when he was traveling too fast for drivers going through the green light to react in time and when he was unable to see the crossing section of road so that he could tell if people where crossing there. He broadsided a car while doing close to 50 miles an hour (made a terrible racket outside) and he and the driver of the car he hit both ended up with critical injuries. I imagine that this was against department policy, but I don't think the cop got more than slap on the wrist for what happened.

Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then...

[asills]

All emergency vehicle drivers are required by their training to slow down at a red light. They are required to slow down to a very slow rate of speed (15-25), make sure it is safe to go through, then blow through it.

Only the most anal actually do it, but they're required to nonetheless. My best friend's dad is incredibly anal and I felt very safe when I got stuck in the car with him travelling at high rates of speeds on an emergency call (bad car wreck). He definitely lost time at lights, but he didn't accidentally kill anyone.

They are supposed to obey traffic laws

[rbanzai]

I worked at two police departments.

Officers are supposed to obey all traffic laws. Code 1 and code 2 responses require obeying the laws. Only code 3 calls (lights and siren) allow them to break these laws.

Cops frequently break these rules. Sometimes it's about expedience, sometimes it's about laziness.

Most cops have informal "code 2 high" which means not using lights or siren and breaking traffic laws as safely as possible. Sometimes they will just use a quick squirt of the lights to get through an intersection.

Bottom line: if the regulations specify obeying the law then they damn well ought to. They are setting a horrible example. When the regulations allow it they should of course feel free to go all out.

From Dallas

[bahwi]

I live in Dallas currently, and let me say, these cameras are starting to go up everywhere, at just about every single light in the city. And Dallas, especially around the downtown area, lights are designed to make you want to run them. There's a set of lights on Commerce St that all match, except one, in the middle, so you can typically breeze halfway through most of them and then you have to wait, can go one, and have to wait for that one then you can finish. It's ridiculous, it's a tiny street never used by anybody, and if they are they have to turn onto Commerce(one way, 3 point intersection).

There's lots of other places, recent construction has literally removed some intersections, but not the lights, which are left running just as before(some with extended hours! Typically blink yellow after 9, but not anymore). Although, I seriously run them and they haven't put cameras up there yet and I would argue and drag it out long enough to make a police officer regret stopping me, but I have seen others stopped because of it. The lights going into downtown(mainly Elm and Main) are typically tuned so you're going to just miss each one and have to wait the full length of time to go, or buses are everywhere and because of continuing construction have to block all traffic going in a certain direction, as the bus lane is now a construction lane. It's quite aggravating and these traffic cams are an insult to everyone in Dallas, "We don't have good roads or a decent traffic system but we'll ticket you for it!" and probably an insult just about everywhere else in the country. I can see reasons, especially at dangerous lights, and I hate to defend myself, but a 3 mile trip shouldn't be 20-30 minutes because of 8 traffic lights(typically having to wait twice at two of them because of some additional not syncing up on cross streets). Fix the system first where running a light is trying to be a bastard instead of trying to go to the grocery store, then let's put them at dangerous intersections and highway/feeder type intersections, and let's go from there.

That being said, and the cameras not about to go anywhere, I find it quite fabulous that an officer is being forced to pay. We had a whole spat of police fired within the past two years because of unpaid traffic fines in different cities and counties and this just adds to the fun. Of course we're completely understaffed, have a terrible corrupt staff, and a high crime rate by police officers who will not look at anything except a speeder. I actually went to report a break in of a car(that was happening at that exact moment) and an office told me he needs to steal the car and speed or he won't care. Then they tried to beat up on our Derby Girls! C'mon! That's just low.

Re:Here's an Easy Idea

[penix1]

Lights and sirens can "tip off" a bad guy. The easier way is to ticket them no matter what and see what the 911 dispatch logs say for that time. If the logs verify they were on a call, the ticket is excused. If not, they are responsible for it.

B.

Re:In the Netherlands

[siwelwerd]

You laugh, but while I was in undergrad in Tuscaloosa, they had a few traffic signal cameras around town and displayed the feeds on a cable channel (so you could monitor traffic conditions, what not). Some state trooper from out of town was in the office controlling the cameras and was zooming in on college girls on the sidewalks, following them around with the cameras completely oblivious to the fact that these cameras were broadcasting. Here's the writeup in the school paper: http://www.cw.ua.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/09/1 2/3f629e6e6a1fd?template=pda

Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po

[fishbowl]

I just slow down for tailgaters. If the tailgater was a cop, I'd pull to the right and then slow down. If the cop kept tailgating I would pull over completely as though he had ordered me to. If instead of just passing by, he stopped to check me out, I'd explain that I assumed because he was tailing me so closely he meant to stop me. I'd be really straightforward and unpleasant but without implying that the tailgating was *wrong*, just that I took it as an authoritative act.

I have often gotten very far with police by affirming, as opposed to challenging their authority. At times, you can put an authority person into a complicated position by behaving as though you believe they have much more authority than they do -- for them, it becomes a challenge between asserting authority that they lack (which is a no-no for them), and admitting to you that their authority is limited.

On the other hand, the magic words have gotten action many times: "I realize you don't have the authority to tell that guy to move his car, but it sure is a nuisance that it's in the middle of the park", (and so on.)

But then, I have never had a police car tailgate me, unless it was moments before turning on the lights to pull me over for my expired plate.

Re:Here's an Easy Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Lights and sirens can "tip off" a bad guy.

Wild ass guess but I think 99% of the "police deterent" should be presence. Undercover and discrete work should not be for blanket protection, but for isolated specific instances.
An example. In Northern VA, the HOV lanes are patrolled by many non marked cars. Having an unmarked car is not a benefit in anyone in this situation. You are stuck on the HOV lanes with no way off, marked or not, the cop will see you without the required number of passengers in your car. Think about this situation. If all of the cops were marked, the people that do slip by without being noticed would see all of the cops that actually patrol that area and may not try to use the HOV lanes illegally next time.

On more thing with HOV in northern VA, the HOV are also packed with people or "police" commuting back and forth to DC for work, it seems if you have a blue light in your dash, you are exempt from the rules. Those people are not on active duty, they are going to DC for work in their personal cars with a fu*king light placed in the dash. Yes, in theory, they could be called to duty at any time but they can take the regular lanes like everyone else.

Safety first

[tobiah]

Twice I've come close to being hit by a police car running a red light without sirens, once on foot and once while driving. I didn't look and say "oh, police, maybe they're going to run the light." I doubt they did it on purpose, just thought it was clear so they went. It was late at night, in a residential district. I'm sure they didn't want to make a nuisance at that late hour, but they didn't seem to be in any hurry either. They ran the light as a course of habit. The law is there for a reason, which is to promote safety. The sirens are there to safely make an exception to traffic law. Emergency vehicle drivers in the habit of running red lights will fail to notice pedestrians and drivers. If penalties and fines are what it takes to get everyone else to obey the law, that's what it will take to make our emergency vehicle drivers obey the law, and more importantly, that's what it will take to make them safe.

The police need to be exempt or nothing gets done

[blhoward2]

As a cop and a volunteer EMT/fire fighter, I have some insight on this. Anyone running lights and sirens is exempt from stopping at red lights though they are entirely responsible as they are considered offensive drivers when doing so. That means their insurance pays no matter what if they hit you. In most states, fire trucks and ambulances are limited to an arbitrary limit above the speed limit, so say speed limit + 10 mph. Cops are not restricted to this limit due to the need for even faster arrival, the maneuverability of their vehicles, and the amount of training they receive (roughly 10 times that of an ambulance or fire truck driver, most departments average around 100 hours behind the wheel in high-speed situations)

Some other points:

-When most people think an ambulance or fire truck is going very fast, its not. It's all perception. I have had people call 911 and report I was speeding in a fire truck and when I was radioed I was only doing 5 mph over. I know this because the tanker I was driving isn't capable of getting up to speed that fast carrying 5,000 gallons of water. It also doesn't need to be the first vehicle on scene and thus is the last to pull out of the station. The lights and siren make it seem faster as well as public perception from movies where they are always speeding.

-As a cop, a siren is not required just because your lights are on. This is a code 2 (lights only) versus a code 3 (lights and siren response). When running code 2, you are more restricted from speeding and could be taking a greater risk depending on the situation. It means, I need to get there quicker the normal but I'm not going so fast that I can't comply with most traffic laws.

-Cops do not run lights and sirens for a reason on occasion. Sirens can be heard for over 3 miles and thus will alert criminals that they are close by. For that reason, they are not used on domestic disturbance responses (people tend to run or kill and then run) or when tracking a suspect (they know where to avoid you).

-Cops not getting tickets because of brotherhood is crap. While the cop may not get a ticket, they generally get very severe internal reprimands. Equate this to you taking a stapler from work. Should you be punished by your employer or charged with theft. I have seen cops demoted and take a $10k a year pay cut for getting into an accident because someone ran a red light and hit them while they were going through a green but their lights just happened to be on.

-A poster pointed out that cops don't always signal. This is probably true, have you ever tried to talk on a radio, usually to both a dispatcher and other units, type a plate into a mobile terminal, and drive at the same time? A cop must do this all at the same time even while on normal patrol. At some point, a cop is going to have to make a decision whether he can safely execute a maneuver without signaling or he is going to be task saturated.

-When a cop is tailgating, he is not enticing you to do wrong. He is pacing you. This is an approved method of speed determination in all states as radar is ineffective in the same direction you are traveling and within +/- 15 mph of your speed. Cop cars have certified calibration of their speedometers. They maintain an exact distance, usually 5 feet from your bumper and look down. This may seem inaccurate but it has been upheld many times and is virtually the only option. Most courts require you maintain this over some distance. Keep driving the speed limit and when he has an accurate speed he will pass.

-Cop cars are already equipped with GPS and radio systems that report speed and location back to the dispatcher. Their actions are enforced just not in the same way as yours.

-Red light cameras suck. I am sure the point the cops hate is who is liable for fighting this. Are the cops liable for searching logs and proving they were on a call? This could add a lot to the 4-5 hours of paperwork a normal cop does in a 12 hour shift. That's less time on the road and more mandatory overtime for the other cops to cover.

Ahem.

[thepotoo]

I may not have a 5-digit UID, but I am an expert in the subject of ambulance driving, having completed the Paramedic missions in GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas.
From my extensive experience in this matter, I have observed that, for every patient saved, an average of 10 people, most of them hookers, are killed.

I can rest my case.