Criminal Charges Against Speed Trap Tweeter

martinlp writes "A Twitter account named Pigspotter is making big news in South Africa. The traffic authorities in Johannesburg are taking legal action against Pigspotter, an individual who is tweeting up-to-the-minute information about speed traps in and around the city. He has recently stopped, stating that his Blackberry is going in for repairs, but it may be out of fear of getting prosecuted. The police claim he must be getting inside information and suspect that disgruntled traffic officers may be involved. There is also speculation that it is more than one individual that is tweeting."

Comments

But how precise is it?

[MichaelSmith]

Police here in Victoria, Australia actively encourage the publication of speed camera locations, which are not particularly precise. So radio stations can report that there is a speed camera on $HIGHWAY without saying exactly where it is and drivers slow down all along that route.

Now if you tell the public exactly where the speed camera is (1km past $CROSSROAD) then the camera could be moved by the time you get there, or you might get the location wrong, or forget by the time you get there. So giving out the precise location might not save the drivers from a ticket and again they just have to slow down and keep a look out.

What the police might not like is a distributed iphone or android app which broadcasts their location in real time and presents it on a map showing your location. You could have "Police Camera" button on the screen and press it after you go past. But the information is going to get stale fast and police could game the system with cheap decoy speed traps.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Moryath]

It's not about safety. It's about money. Speed traps are designed to trick people into a spot where revenue generation occurs.

There's a spot I know of ~100 miles north of me where a highway marked at 65 off-ramps onto another highway marked at 60. The change in speed isn't marked at the top of the ramp, however, but 3 miles down the road instead. Local sheriffs LOVE to sit at the top of the hill and watch for people doing 65-70, who don't know about the speed change, and then cite them tickets.

Likewise, my city has a bunch of redlight cameras. And non-coincidentally, right after installing them, someone noticed they could issue a lot more fines if they shortened the yellow light time, despite every available study showing that safety is improved with longer yellow times. They are now getting sued and it's going up to the state supreme court because they shortened the things to .25 seconds below the state required timing in order to beef up ticket revenue, AND they made them "civil fines" rather than actual ticket infractions to try to get around a state law prohibiting cities from getting more than a certain percentage of their funding from traffic fines (a law, ironically enough, passed because of certain little shit-pot one-stoplight towns that were running traffic scams left and right and getting 80-90% of their revenue from issuing insane tickets to out-of-towners).

Of course, the major problem here is that police - pretty much all of them - are corrupt. They start them on traffic duty, set a ticket quota, tell them to issue tickets by hook or by crook. If they don't meet quota, they get their income screwed with, they don't get a chance at overtime hours, or they get lousy performance reviews. By the time they graduate from issuing traffic tickets any semblance of honor, integrity, or respect for the general population has long ago been trained out of them in favor of the "fuck it, ticket them, cuff them, they're all guilty of something anyways" attitude.

Show me an honest cop today, and I'll show you a flying pig doing cartwheels next to a unicorn.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Mr. Freeman]

"Speed traps are set up in spots where assholes like you drive balls to the wall every fucking day."

No, they're set up ONLY at places where there's lots of revenue to be made. I mean, they've literally stopped running red light cameras on intersections because "it's not generating enough revenue". The LAST thing they care about is keeping the public safe. You cannot install a redlight or speed camera under the premise of "keeping things safe" and ethically remove it with the answer of "it's not generating revenue".

Re:But how precise is it?

[Yetihehe]

Show me an honest cop today, and I'll show you a flying pig doing cartwheels next to a unicorn.

This is just a visibility bias. Do you remember the last 10 officers who didn't give you a ticket? But you do remember those who did. There are many honest cops, but they are doing their job and not screwing with citizens so the citizens don't even notice them.

Re:But how precise is it?

[penguinchris]

I know I shouldn't feed an anonymous troll but that's bullshit. Speed traps as you seem to define them are reasonable - those are when police cars sit on the highway in plain sight and pull over people going unsafely fast or otherwise driving recklessly. The rest of us define speed traps as the ones where the police set up camp in a place where people are guaranteed to be speeding because either the speed limits are set too low or change without being marked changed (as in the parent's example) or for other reasons.

I got a speeding ticket a few years ago for going slightly faster than traffic flow (which was already about 10 over the limit)... because I was passing a line of trucks, and was at the bottom of a *huge* hill where everyone inadvertently speeds up - which is right where the police car was waiting. That's a speed trap, and the police set up in those areas to make money, plain and simple. If they were doing their job of keeping the road safe by pulling over people who are actually driving dangerously, no one would complain about them.

It's true that there are assholes who drive balls to the wall every fucking day, as you eloquently put it, and those people should be pulled over. One doesn't have to be that kind of driver to find major reasons to complain about speed traps, though.

Re:But how precise is it?

[bigsteve@dstc]

Read this article: http://www.safemotorist.com/articles/traffic_ticket_quotas.aspx Among other things, it says that traffic fine quotas are explicitly forbidden in most jurisdictions (USA). Of course, you may be in a jurisdiction that doesn't forbid quotas, or where the local police ignore the rules.

My second point, is that individual police officers and the police force typically does not get any direct financial benefit for traffic fines. The collected fines generally goes into general government revenue. (In Australia, it is state or territory revenue.) So unless there is a quota system in place, the typically police have no particular incentive to act as revenue raisers.

My third point is that while traffic fines do raise revenue, appropriate use of speed traps, red light cameras and so on does reduce traffic accidents.

Finally, a long time ago (when speed cameras were new), I worked in the IT department of an Australian state police force. One of the systems that we ran for the police was a radar trap location planner. One of the inputs into that system was localized road accident statistics from the State's department of main roads.

Re:But how precise is it?

[CarpetShark]

Show me an honest cop today, and I'll show you a flying pig doing cartwheels next to a unicorn.

I was going to show you an honest cop, but I've nothing to gain from it, since he already happens to be flying and doing cartwheels next to a unicorn.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Moryath]

When there's a freeway underpass the city over from mine where they sit on quota day (and it's pretty fucking obvious it's quota day, no time else do you have 10 pigs parked in the underpass breakdown lane waiting in one spot) trading turns on who gets to pull the next guy over on the radar-gun spotter's call until they have all made quota, in a zone where they pull a speed limit 45-25-45-25-45 trick?

The locals all know - unless they forget or are brand new teen drivers - to do no more than 30 through that entire zone, because if you get up to 45, there's no way you can hit the brakes and get down to 25 in that distance without locking your brakes and risking a skid.

It also helps that the locals all have "flood zone" stickers on their cars that serve the "spoken" purpose of allowing them to be in the area during voluntary-evacuation times, but also let the local corrupt pigs know EXACTLY who's from out-of-city for ticketing purposes. I've actually sat in traffic court and watched a city resident get his ticket dropped after a sidebar conversation with the judge about how it was a brand new car and his flood-zone ticket hadn't yet been issued to him.

So I say no, they're ALL corrupt. No "visibility bias" about it.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Runaway1956]

Doesn't matter what the cops like. In a "free" country, any information that is not classified "secret" or "confidential" for security reasons can be freely discussed. If the cops can shut you up, then it's not a "free" country. It hardly matters whether I tell verbally, or by radio, or by tweeting where the cops are. It's my RIGHT to discuss whatever I may see or hear.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot really needs a "like" button.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Moryath]

Among other things, it says that traffic fine quotas are explicitly forbidden in most jurisdictions (USA).

And who the fuck is ever going to catch them doing it? The police?

No, they have "spoken but unwritten" quotas. All the law forbids is actually writing a quota down. It doesn't forbid the local government making a budget based on an expected yearly dollar-amount in fines, and then holding the police department responsible for either making quota or having their budget cut. Nor does it forbid them from writing the cops up for "insufficient zeal in traffic enforcement" (actual words they use on the reviews) for failing to meet the unwritten quota.

Again, I ask - who's going to report them or enforce it. The police? Yeah right - protest a quota policy and watch how fast no police department will ever hire you again, because you don't play ball with the corrupt policies. Anyone honest enough to not write fraudulent tickets is never going to move up the ladder, only the dirty ones ever get promoted.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jafafa Hots]

The little town I used to live in did this.

There was an expressway that passed through a rural spot of the town. It was in a cut down grade, all local town roads that came near it (very few) passed over it on bridges. So there were NO traffic or safety issues for the town as a result. The town was totally unaffected by this stretch of highway, it was down in a gulch between farm fields, fenced off and inaccessible - essentially a complete other world from the town.

The town used to station cop cars (the town only HAD like 2 cop cars) at some spot near a slight rise and it was a notorious speed trap.

Traffic court was on Thursday night. Every Thursday nights would show our tiny town hall (a historic converted 19th century one-room schoolhouse) with a line of people winding around several times outside. Processed quickly, cha-ching.

A massive revenue stream from people not from the town, who had no idea they were technically IN the town, and whose driving (speeding or not) had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the town, was not even noticeable in the sleepy quiet little town.

The ENTIRE THING was a massive revenue source, and of course when the state moved to raise the speed limit from 55 to higher, the town had a fit, because the highway was under state jurisdiction and therefore the town couldn't set a lower limit for that stretch.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jafafa Hots]

But those "honest" cops KNOW some of their co-workers are not honest cops, they all know of cases where a colleague fudged an arrest report or claimed that a driver crossed the white line when they didn;t actually, because they had a hunch that the driver was not legitotherwise but had no probable cause to stop them, etc., etc., ALL cops know of these things happening from time to time, yet don't arrest them or report the cops to supervisors or testify on behalf of the other cops' victims.

So there are no honest cops.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Runaway1956]

You, sir, are a tool. Speeding tickets are all about revenues. I drove over the road for years. I signed a lot of tickets. In my own experience, roughly 1/3 of them were BOGUS. I've read many reports and studies over the years that pretty much support my own experience. Some of them have claimed 20% bogus tickets, others have claimed more than half. All of them COULD be right, depending on when and where the studies and reports originated. I've showed up in court, beat the ticket, only to have the judge tell me that I had to pay a "processing fee" or some such nonsense. In New Mexico, tickets are pretty cheap, but if you go to court, you WILL pay that fine, in one way or another. I've also seen tickets "kept off the record", if you're willing to cough up extra money. That is completely illegal according to FEDERAL law, but it doesn't stop local courts from collecting that graft - errrr - REVENUE! If you are interested in highway safety, you might investigate the "85th percentile" that traffic engineers use to determine safe speed limits. Everything else is a money making scheme.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jafafa Hots]

I'll just add, before someone accuses me of a sort of bias, saying I'm just a leadfoot who wants to speed without consqeuence... BZZZT, wrong!

I don't drive. I never drive. I have never driven nor owned a car.

The reason? I am disabled and can't.

Why am I disabled? Because when I was a teenager crossing the street as a pedestrian I was struck by a speeding pickup truck driver.

So I think I can reasonably claim that I have no particular bias in favor of traffic scofflaws.

Re:But how precise is it?

[mehrotra.akash]

the +1 funny mod is for that

Re:But how precise is it?

[dangitman]

It's not about safety. It's about money

So, if it's about money, then just drive at the speed limit and screw them out of the money. If everybody did this, then the cameras would disappear because revenue would dry up (assuming it is about money).

Re:But how precise is it?

[Moryath]

If only it were that easy.

The point of "speed traps" is that you can be going the speed limit one moment, and they set up a situation where you can't POSSIBLY - at least not without risking a serious wreck - slow down to the new limit in time, or else you're on a road switch and the new limit is posted "down the road."

Likewise with the yellow-light timing; they shorten it enough, and even people who couldn't possibly stop (at least, again, not without risking someone running into them from behind) get caught mid-intersection anyways. I've measured yellow times as short as 1.75 seconds in my area on a 40mph road.

In some US states, the police officers are "certified to estimate speed", usually with a bullshit claim that these guys are accurate to within 3mph or so. So they can lie their asses off if they see out-of-town/out-of-state plates and stickers, claim they "estimated" you at 10 over the limit, and just write the tickets all fucking day. No radar gun, no certification that the radar gun is calibrated properly, just their corrupt lying word against yours, and a judge in their pocket since his pay is coming from the traffic fine revenue pot too.

It's like operating a "toll road", they just pull people over at random, lie their asses off, and collect fines/fees/etc. And again, who's going to stop them - the police?

Re:But how precise is it?

[mysidia]

There's a spot I know of ~100 miles north of me where a highway marked at 65 off-ramps onto another highway marked at 60. The change in speed isn't marked at the top of the ramp, however, but 3 miles down the road instead. Local sheriffs LOVE to sit at the top of the hill and watch for people doing 65-70, who don't know about the speed change, and then cite them tickets.

In other words, a supposed change of the speed limit isn't properly marked... someone should be able to take this to court and have their ticket overturned on these grounds, then maybe the DOT will mark it properly.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The change in speed isn't marked at the top of the ramp, however, but 3 miles down the road instead. Local sheriffs LOVE to sit at the top of the hill and watch for people doing 65-70, who don't know about the speed change, and then cite them tickets."

That can't be legal, but I bet the local court gives you the runaround if you try to get justice on that.

Re:But how precise is it?

[bigsteve@dstc]

Provide me the evidence. Just because you and a bunch of other people believe it is true, doesn't make it true. If it was really happening to any great extent, there would be evidence. Someone, somewhere would be blowing the whistle. (And I don't believe that all cops are corrupt, any more than I believe that all Americans are god fearing.)

Re:But how precise is it?

[secolactico]

Traffic court was on Thursday night. Every Thursday nights would show our tiny town hall (a historic converted 19th century one-room schoolhouse) with a line of people winding around several times outside. Processed quickly, cha-ching.

Unless you were a country singer, in that case you had to spend an evening singing at the Boar's Nest.

Re:But how precise is it?

[khchung]

The stupidity is letting the police Dept pcket the fines. Instead, like some other sane places, all fines should go to the country/state/city budget, mixed up with all other taxes. This remove all incentives for police to create speed traps in the first place and focus on reducing traffic accidents instead.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the speed limits would get lowered, or they would make the limits as confusing as possible to catch some people out etc. When it's about money, governments don't just give up.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct/

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent

Just because you and a bunch of other people deny it, doesn't mean it can't happen easily.

Re:But how precise is it?

[caluml]

There's a spot I know of ~100 miles north of me where a highway marked at 65 off-ramps onto another highway marked at 60. The change in speed isn't marked at the top of the ramp, however, but 3 miles down the road instead. Local sheriffs LOVE to sit at the top of the hill and watch for people doing 65-70, who don't know about the speed change, and then cite them tickets.

So you appeal, go to court, and get it overturned?

Re:But how precise is it?

[lattyware]

In the UK, they have to tell us where they are, put up signs warning us there are speed cameras (or that the police set up speed traps) along that road, and paint the speed cameras bright orange. The idea is that the speed cameras cause people to slow down, not catch people going fast.
The problem was that speed cameras are simply raking in too much profit, so they were seen as being there for the wrong reasons, now they have changed it, and local councils don't get funding for speed cameras and stuff. Now they instead are putting up signs that simply flash the speed limit at you if you are going over it, which are apparently more successful than speed cameras in making people slow down. They are also doing more 'average speed' cameras, rather than grabbing you at one moment in time.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

i remember every single time i've been pulled over. granted i've only been pulled over 5 times in 11 years though.

ticketed twice for speeding, once for no seatbelt. once on the interstate out of state, i was in the middle of a group of cars, we're all speeding a bit, but of course i'm the one pulled over because there's no way i'm going to show up to court out of state. $200 ticket for ~10 over. second speeding ticket, there was a spot on the way home from class where cops always sit to catch people speeding. just down the crest of this hill where the speed limit drops from 50 to 35 as you're going down. usually i was good about slowing down before i crested the hill, but one day i spaced for literally 5 seconds and blam, ticket for 20 over. only $60 though. the no seatbelt ticket, i literally pulled my car out of my driveway, drove less than a block and parked it. the cop pulls up behind me after i park and writes me a ticket for $25.

the two other times i was let go with verbal warnings. first time was reckless driving and no seatbelt, i was 16 and you can bet your ass i remember it. i was driving 75mph down mainstreet where the limit is 25. (lolstupidteenager) when he pulled me over, i pulled into a gas station parking lot and my friend went inside while i talked to the cop. he asked me what the hurry was and i actually told him that my friend was hypoglycemic and needed a candy bar. that guy could have easily fucked my shit up, but he just told me to cut it out. second time i was also 16 and was driving around at 4am without headlights on, the streets are illuminated bright enough and there were zero other cars on the road, so i didn't even notice. anyway, with graduated licensing i wasn't supposed to be driving past like midnight or 11pm, but i had forgotten that rule. the guy was a huge dick to me, basically calling me a liar to my face. his partner was more understanding and probably talked the other guy out of giving me a ticket. in the end they just told us to head straight home.

tl;dr: i remember every time i got pulled over.

Re:But how precise is it?

[hldn]

i've seen people without arms drive cars. i'm sure you could drive if you wanted to.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, after reading your post history, you clearly have some sort of serious axe to grind with the cops.

Yeah, it sucks when you get a speeding ticket from a cop, but there are also there to help you when you need it, too. If you only watch videos of cops on YouTube you might think they are corrupt, but reality is different...

Re:But how precise is it?

[betterunixthanunix]

Nobody is free to roam all streets, at least not in any major city. Nor are we free to speak to cops the same way we can speak to civilians. Nor are people with handicaps free to obtain drugs that can help them, for fear that the cops might arrest them.

Anyone who becomes a cop has suspect morals in my book, at least given the state of our laws and the way police departments operate.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Do you remember the last 10 officers who didn't give you a ticket?

Yes I do, because I was surprised they did not ticket me. (I speed a lot and in 99% of cases I deserve it.) You made a false assumption here. As for the grandparent post I agree that Speed Laws are about making money. Accidents are not caused by fast driving (500,000 miles and zero accidents for me).

Accidents are caused by lane changes where one driver misjudged and hit another car. i.e. Zig-zagging i.e. recklessness. Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents. Look at the low rate of accidents in places like Montana where 85-90 mph is the norm. Speeding is not what causes accidents. Driver error/recklessness does.

So basically reducing the speed limit, even as low as 35 on an interstate, will not magically end crashes.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

"The police claim he must be getting inside information and suspect that disgruntled traffic officers may be involved."

Cops know the real score, but they want to keep their job just the same as you & I do. Example: I witnessed my boss taking a government-paid "business trip" but really a Vacation every single week - but I kept my mouth shut because I needed a job.

If you search around youtube you'll find a few videos from former cops discussing all the corruption they have witnessed, not just in speeding revenue generation but also in general, like entering homes without permission.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Dan541]

Then they will just lower the speed limits.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

+1 for Cold Hearted Snake.

You clearly didn't understand the man's point (he's biased in favor of *stricter* traffic law) but were too busy trying to prove him wrong to pay attention.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

>>>then just drive at the speed limit and screw them out of the money.

So instead of a 6 hour trip from DC to my weekend home, I'd have an 8 hour trip. Your solution is a poor solution for those who have to travel a distance. Besides interstates are ALL designed for 120 mph travel per Congressional law, other than a few close=in spurs (like I-495). It is illogical to badge a high-speed road at only half its designed speed.

Speed limits on US interstates should be the same as they are on Germany's autobahn, which is what Eisenhower was copying when he brought the idea back home.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Schadrach]

You mean like places where the speed limit goes 55->35->15->35->40(this one is a yellow "caution" sign on a curve, BTW)->45 in the span of a single mile? Or even better where the speed limit in one direction is 55, but in the other direction is 40 with multiple intersections between the signs, so that if you're an out-of-towner you might not realize that the speed limit is 55 if you turn right but only 40 if you turn left (or vice versa coming from the other side)?

Both real examples, both within two dozen miles of where I live.

Re:But how precise is it?

[GeigerBC]

Why don't you call up your local jurisdiction and tell them of your findings? The yellow interval has to be at least 3 seconds long.

Re:But how precise is it?

[KDR_11k]

Who's going to stop them? Well, if the judiciary is failing that job there's still the legislative.In other words, it's the job of those dirty lying scumbags you elected so put some pressure on them.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Yetihehe]

Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents.

Yeah, and falling from heights is not fatal, only impact is. I had collision once and I can say one and only cause was me speeding. If I didn't go so fast, I would have enough time to break. Of course reducing current speed limits won't cause drop in accidents due to reckless driving or inattentive drivers.

Re:But how precise is it?

[KDR_11k]

So roughly one third is limited to 120-130 km/h (75-80mph) and some stretches even to 100km/h (60mph)?

Re:But how precise is it?

[TapeCutter]

"It's not about safety. It's about money. Speed traps are designed to trick people into a spot where revenue generation occurs."

Maybe where you live but the OP is correct, police in Victoria engourage the publication of speed trap and red light camera locations because their aim is to cut the road toll. Reducing the road toll in our state from 1500+/yr in the late 60's, early 70's, down to the current 3-400 has saved far more revenue than the state could ever make from traffic tickets** (not to mention death, disability and heartache). Note that in the same period the number of cars in the state has increased ten fold, meaning by 1970 standards we should have a road toll of around 15,000.

Also the "shock value" TAC ads were pioneered in Victoria and have been going for 20yrs now. They have been credited with halving the road toll in that time and the campaign has been copied by many other nations who are serious about reducing the carnage on their own roads.

** In the first 2yrs of the campaign the reduction in injuries saved the TAC $2 BILLION dollars in medical claims.

Re:But how precise is it?

[level_headed_midwest]

And it will probably be in Illinois, because there's a mandatory minimum of a $350 fine for speeding in a construction zone there.

Re:But how precise is it?

[KDR_11k]

Yes but is South Africa de-facto free to that extent?

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jawnn]

Personal friend, a cop, shared with me that while his "employer" did not have a quota on traffic citations, it was "expected" that each officer would write at least a certain number per month, lest he receive a poor review for not doing his job. "So," says I, "any given infraction you witness may, or may not, result in a traffic stop and citation, depending on what your numbers are for that month?" "Pretty much", says he.
Sounds like a quota to me.
As for the efficacy of red light cameras, please cite your references. AFIK, quite the opposite is true.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jawnn]

It probably isn't, but that sounds exactly like Selma, TX, back in the days before the town hall became a Hooters. Selma regularly made the annual "Top Ten Worst Speed Traps" list in one of those gearhead magazines (Car and Driver?), and for good reason. Though the town has grown up a lot since then, with much more revenue coming from a horse racing track, strip malls, and the aforementioned dry-hustle restaurant chain, the local LEO's still beat up on unaware drivers coming down that hill into town on I-35.

Re:But how precise is it?

[loshwomp]

The point of "speed traps" is that you can be going the speed limit one moment, and they set up a situation where you can't POSSIBLY - at least not without risking a serious wreck - slow down to the new limit in time, or else you're on a road switch and the new limit is posted "down the road."

I ran out of mod points before I could mod this funny. So that's "the point of speed traps", huh?

I've measured yellow times as short as 1.75 seconds in my area on a 40mph road.

So why didn't you report them? Yellow light timing is a complicated subject, but there is generally no excuse for durations under 3.0 seconds.

Re:But how precise is it?

[TheGratefulNet]

sure, there is no such thing as a quota system. uhuh.

and in fact, if you do a good job for the boss (and his boss) you get to keep yoru job.

don't measure up? they have ways to give hints about your 'performance'.

lets stop being children here and wise up: its a financial endeavor and we all pretty much know it.

like much in life, there is a duality: the story as its official on paper and the actual reality out on the street. officially, there is no quota system. but are you that new to life that you really believe that?

of COURSE they have to say, officially, there is no quota system. but then drive around the weeks before and after tax-day (apr 15 here) and see all the cops giving out tickets. (I wondered about this and mentioned it to some friends who also noticed that around tax time, there was HEAVY ticketing going on. they know what's up: its tax REFUND time. people have extra money around that time. good time to scoop up some of THEIR money and snag it for themselves. look around next tax season and see how many obvious traffic stops you see. interesting, huh?

Re:But how precise is it?

[insufflate10mg]

The reason they drop the speed limits is because there is an increased risk of accident/injury in that particular area. If you really have a problem with it, shoot me the street name so I can check out the Google Maps images of the area. I guarantee the speed limit variation is perfectly justified. Also, there is no such thing as quotas for speeding tickets.

Re:But how precise is it?

[russotto]

Do you remember the last 10 officers who didn't give you a ticket?

Sure. 4 of them were giving other people tickets, one was eating a doughnut, and the other 5 were beating up a member of $ETHNIC for fun.

Re:But how precise is it?

[insufflate10mg]

That comes nowhere close to addressing his concern about unwritten quotas...

Re:But how precise is it?

[loshwomp]

Besides interstates are ALL designed for 120 mph travel per Congressional law, other than a few close=in spurs (like I-495).

I'm going to need a citation on that. There may be parts of the system that would be safe at that speed, but those would be exceptional.

It is illogical to badge a high-speed road at only half its designed speed.

So why don't you petition to get that changed, instead of breaking the law and then whining when you get caught? It sounds like most of society actually likes having speed limits.

Speed limits on US interstates should be the same as they are on Germany's autobahn, which is what Eisenhower was copying when he brought the idea back home.

You cannot possibly have driven on the modern autobahn if you are seriously making that claim. The US interstate highways are lame by comparison, in terms of road surface quality, lane marking, signaling, etc., and despite this only a minority of the autobahn network would permit speeds of 120 MPH.

Eisenhower was trying to clone the autobahn, but it was primarily to enable military mobilization, not to facilite 200 km/h personal transportation, and it is a shame he didn't notice Germany's excellent rail network, which was much more effective at moving war goods than the autobahn was.

Re:But how precise is it?

[DrugCheese]

There are many honest cops, but they are doing their job and not screwing with citizens so the citizens don't even notice them.

How come we never see them speak up when another cop is under indictment for brutality? You would think a criminal would be a criminal, but if they wear a badge then they're somehow exempt. Any cop who can stand by silently while another cop takes away basic human rights is just as guilty.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Yeah, and falling from heights is not fatal, only impact is.

Nonsequitor. And does not prove that speeding, alone, causes accidents. As I mentioned I could drive through the empty plains of Montana at 90mph and never have an accident. Accidents are caused by changing lanes or zig-zagging through masses of other cars (aka driver error). That is what causes 99% of the wrecks in the US, not speed.

Even if you made everyone drive at 10mph, there'd still be accidents because speed is not the cause.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Kagura]

... was driving around at 4am without headlights on, the streets are illuminated bright enough and there were zero other cars on the road

How do you expect to see retroreflector indicators? i.e. people, bicycles, road markers, signs, etc.? Pedestrians and bikers can appear on the road so quickly at night that you really have to take as many precautions as possible.

Re:But how precise is it?

[smi.james.th]

Try following your own advice.

Re:But how precise is it?

[TheGratefulNet]

if it walks like a duck, .... its a duck.

dont piss in my cheerios and tell me its milk. we're not that dumb.

of course there are quotas. don't be naive.

Re:But how precise is it?

[smi.james.th]

i'm just saying he could probably drive if he wanted to, he's just too lazy.

He's probably traumatized by all forms of motorized transport as a result of his accident, you insensitive clod!

Re:But how precise is it?

[sjames]

Are they busy exposing the rampant lawlessness within their department? If not, they are at least partially corrupted into turning a blind eye to a problem that is slowly eating away the foundation of our society.

Re:But how precise is it?

[smi.james.th]

That's a very good question. I'd go with no. There isn't as established a legal system here as in the States or other places, and the cops are used to getting away with pretty much anything they want. Citizens who attempt to take them to task for their misconduct and abuse of their power never get anywhere.

Disagreeing with the ruling party also gets you into trouble, branded a "racist" (came up elsewhere in thread as well), etc. All in all, not much fun.

Re:But how precise is it?

[AceofSpades19]

Ummm actually I spent the whole summer working with cops that were more honest then most people I know. Not all cops are crooks and its unfair to paint them all that way just as it is to say that all Muslims are terrorists.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Stiletto]

We vote for our lawmakers. In my view the biggest problem is the general public, election after election, voting out of propaganda-induced fear for people who see nothing wrong with using traffic law as a revenue stream.

It's not like these laws are etched in stone. Any day, any state can outlaw traffic cameras and speed traps, but they won't because voters (the same ones I commute who consistently drive at 10+ over the limit) associate traffic speed with danger and vote for the people who promise to end danger.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Dhalka226]

Among other things, it says that traffic fine quotas are explicitly forbidden in most jurisdictions (USA)

Which jives perfectly with what I've always heard and assumed, so I have no reason to believe it is not true. At the same time, you don't need to have a quota in order to have a quota, if you know what I'm saying.

We tend to object to quotas because we find them sinister. "I'm going to get a ticket for a bullshit reason because some cop needs to meet his quota!" There is certainly that angle, but spin it on its head and you have a valid reason for some sort of quota: Performance evaluation.

Of course being a good police officer is not mostly or even largely based on how many tickets you write, but really, the police have three jobs: Patrol and write tickets, answer calls and show up in court to defend what you've done while writing tickets and answering calls. If you don't show up to calls it's going to be noticed extremely fast, and you're going to be out on your ass. If everything you do is constantly being thrown out because you don't bother to show up in court, that's going to be noticed too. So we can safely assume that most cops, in the vast majority of circumstances, are doing #2 and #3.

So which cops are doing a really fine job and which are wasting time? The only measure is the number of tickets they're writing. Police officers are extremely independent; most of the time they're in a patrol car alone and there is going to be a fair bit of time on any given day where there simply are no calls to answer, especially in smaller jurisdictions. Which ones are actually patrolling, looking for problems versus standing around chatting with their clerk buddy at the gas station or taking a nap or screwing around on their personal laptops? A lot of people won't care what a cop is doing if he's showing up to all his calls, but a lot of them also will. Especially insofar as police presence can help deter crime even without explicit success in the form of arrests.

So no, there's probably no "quota." They probably don't have to write at least X many tickets in an evaluation period. But you can be pretty sure somebody is looking at it, and not necessarily for nefarious purposes -- and you can also be pretty sure that the guys out on the street don't want their number to be considered "low," either numerically or comparatively.

Re:But how precise is it?

[joeyblades]

We all know people we work with who are less than ethical. Since most of us don't do anything about the ethics of those around us, then by your assessment, none of us are honest...

Re:But how precise is it?

[rxan]

Would you like to cite that rant?

I've gotten a few tickets in my day but I never became jaded. The fee is a penalty. Demerit points are a penalty. Yes, it provides revenue. Would you rather have them haul your ass into jail everytime you broke the speed limit? It'll take the points/fee thanks.

Guess what: police and crews coming in to clean up accidents costs... money! Accidents happen. Unsafe drivers tend to cause more accidents.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

>>>You cannot possibly have driven on the modern autobahn

No not "driven" but I've been a passenger multiple times. The autobahn looks no different than I-95 in northern Maryland or I-66 west of DC. I could trick myself into believing I'm still in the US, if not for the german signs.
.

>>>it is a shame he didn't notice Germany's excellent rail network, which was much more effective at moving war goods than the autobahn was.

No not really. Hitler's Blitzkrieg was dependent upon the highway system - i.e. move tanks quickly across Germany as needed. Eisenhower wanted that same fast mobilization in the US.
.

>>>So roughly one third is limited to 120-130 km/h (75-80mph)?

And the rest having no speed limit (except what the driver feels comfortable with). Yes that's how I think US interstates should be designed. In fact Montana had such a system in the 1990s, and it worked just fine. The only reason they switched from "no limit" to 75 was because of Congress ordering them to, else their rural interstates would still be unlimited.

Highway engineers already suggest speed limits of 85 on most interstates, but then they get overruled by politicians trying to score points with voters by arbitrarily declaring 65 is the maximum. ("See? I am tough on crime!" they declare.) If the politicians do not listen to College-educated engineers, then they certainly won't listen to me.
.

Re:But how precise is it?

[earthforce_1]

Of course it is about revenue; that is why you see local cops from towns many miles away chasing out of state cars on the freeway. Its all a scam.

My solution is to see all ticket revenue donated dollar for dollar to the UN. Then they can write all the tickets they want without any revenue generation conflict of interest.

Re:But how precise is it?

[moortak]

It also sounds a lot like New Rome, Ohio before its dissolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio

Re:But how precise is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at "This American Life" The right to remain silent.. The second story as about an honest cop who tried to do the right thing and bring change to the NYPD. What did he get for his effort--harassed, fired, declared mentally unstable, and committed. Only because he took extreme measures does he get to see the light of day now. There is your evidence.

Re:But how precise is it?

[dryeo]

You must live somewhere where the roads are pretty straight. Around here the sides of the roads are littered with crosses where someone was going to fast to make a corner and died.
On windy mountainous roads speed definitely kills.

Re:But how precise is it?

[BitZtream]

because if you get up to 45, there's no way you can hit the brakes and get down to 25 in that distance without locking your brakes and risking a skid.

So ... the sign for the 25mph zone is what ... 35-45 feet past the 45 mph sign? If you can't slow down without skidding then the signs must be so close together that you would certainly see them both at the same time.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

It seems to me a good Slashdot-appropriate analogy might be lines of code as a metric for evaluating software developer performance. It's one of the few things that can be measured simply and objectively, but there's at best a weak correlation between lines of code written and value provided by the developer.

Evaluating an individual software developer's level of performance is hard. Evaluating an individual police officer's level of performance is likely hard, too.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Peach Rings]

In my area they have targeted enforcement days where all the cops are out to show strong presence and catch everyone who speeds on that day to discourage those people from thinking they can get away with it day after day. It has nothing to do with quotas.

Re:But how precise is it?

[dkf]

Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents. Look at the low rate of accidents in places like Montana where 85-90 mph is the norm. Speeding is not what causes accidents. Driver error/recklessness does.

Excessive speed causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time that a driver has to react to a situation and take mitigation steps. It also increases how long it takes for things to actually happen. Of course, what is excessive will vary from one road to another. Straight freeways in dry weather can support higher safe speeds than twisty mountain roads in snow. (Duh!) More to the point, the safe speed for a road also depends on traffic conditions; in heavy traffic, the safe speed tends to be lower. Trickier is when the safe speed for a road is lower than it appears to be (e.g., because of a hidden dip containing a crossing).

But let's treat this with a more scientific approach. Lowering a speed limit makes sense for a road when it leads to a statistically significant reduction in serious crashes (relative to the inconvenience to folks of having less freedom to drive as they please). That reducing speed has such an impact, at least in some locations, shows that it must be a contributing factor in crashes. Yes, it's probably also a proxy for the recklessness of some drivers, but that doesn't change the fact that increasing the amount of time for people to react and reducing the kinetic energy of the impact if/when a crash happens does make things safer.

Obviously speed can't be the only factor; this means that taking the limit down too far doesn't help because the other (immediate) factors become totally dominating. It's a bit like a bottleneck analysis in program optimization; no point in putting effort into dealing with things that only have a miniscule contribution. But what it does do is make everything else worse because of its impact on time for people to react and on KE at impact.

So basically reducing the speed limit, even as low as 35 on an interstate, will not magically end crashes.

The only way to magically end crashes on roads is to get rid of road traffic. Or roads I suppose. Not exactly practical either way.

There will always be people about who take too many chances; they're just inclined to be reckless from time to time. However, the way I was taught to drive, the first consideration was always to drive in a manner that is safe for the road and for other road users. It's damn rare that you need to go faster than the posted speed limit. (If you live somewhere where you're expected to obey unposted limits, that's definitely unfair and something you should be talking to relevant politicians about fixing.) And to be blunt, having a crash kind-of guarantees that you won't get to where you want to be on time...

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jafafa Hots]

People like you would annoy disabled people such as myself, but generally you don't because we that disabilities come in many forms, such as being a clueless fuck with a vastly inflated sense of your own knowledge.

For others' edification, not for yours... the reason I can't drive is because I sustained a skull fracture and brain damage. I LOOK fine usually, except when I am in a severe attack
(during which I literally can't walk and must be carried, can't converse, and have been percieved to be a severely mentally retarded person.) As a result of the head injury (and also later illness) I have severe vertigo problems. I am not able to do the "eye-tracking" necessary to drive,

In addition have various cognitive and memory problems that impair driving.

Brain damage is a strange thing. You never get used to it.

In other words, I could physically drive a bit, yes. I could press a gas pedal and brake pedal, and steer, but I cannot SAFELY drive, I cannot be licensed, and would be a danger to myself and others on the road.

Similar to how people who have seizures lose their license.

Re:But how precise is it?

[Jafafa Hots]

Well by my assessment, MOST are not honest.

Me, I saw my company doing something unethical that could have cost lives. I started gathering copies of internal documents with the intent of being a whistleblower, meanwhile pressured for the company to do the right thing. Luckily for me I suppose, the company came around and did the right thing.

I have quit jobs rather than do something unethical. Went into business for myself, and strove to have a perfect record of integrity, and it paid off in customer loyalty.

It's not that hard to be honest. You just have to be willing to sacrifice a few things... stupid material things generally. My personal position has always been that the dishonest person loses more than an honest person.

The honest person may not have the nicest newest car, clothes, the biggest house... but the dishonest person loses their integrity - integrity is the one thing you have that can NEVER be stolen from you... but oddly so many seem willing to toss it away for a few bucks. I've never understood that.

But then, I also have very different goals in life than most people (I'm not saying this is a virtue, maybe I'm defective in some way)

Re:But how precise is it?

[gknoy]

Videos are harder to edit in an unobtrusive way. They still have the bias of the cameraman (you can't see what's off-screen), and anyone talking may likely be biased (or perhaps even lying)... but it's still valuable. Not everyone that posts a video is making stuff up; people posting videos where they talk about corruption may simply be doing it so that you can (a) see that the audio hasn't been spliced together and (b)identify the speaker as a Person, not as just Some Guy. Reading an article on the web (or in a paper) has less weight than watching a person speak to you. (Not that it SHOULD, but it does.)

Re:But how precise is it?

[TapeCutter]

"Of course it is the improvement in vehicle safety items, such as brakes airbags and mandatory seatbelt wearing that produced that improvement, not ads or speed traps."

Sure those things have contributed but so have speed traps, booze buses, education, etc.

"But keep on drinking the kool-aid by all means."

Whatever, your attitude will change when you grow up.

Re:But how precise is it?

[winwar]

"Since most of us don't do anything about the ethics of those around us, then by your assessment, none of us are honest..."

How exactly is this relevant to whether or not cops are honest? It's never a good thing when the defense is that "everybody does it".

In any case we hold police to a higher standard. Or at least most people consider them to be more honest than most and the police use that trust. Considering that they have the legal authority to take your life and liberty I think that they should be actually held to a higher standard in actual practice.

Re:But how precise is it?

[joeyblades]

You're putting words in my mouth. My point wasn't that it's OK because everyone is corrupt. My point is you shouldn't have unrealistic expectations of the police. You can try to hold them to a higher standard, but you'll be disappointed.

I would like to think that the police are just people and that what they do is just a job.

I would like to think this, but, I sometimes find myself asking what motivates someone to become a cop? I'm sure there are few well balanced cops, but I think the scales of justice may be tipped just a little towards the unbalanced. I also think that many who start out balanced can become jaded by what they experience on the job and the company they keep or even become corrupted by the power and authority granted them by the public.

Re:But how precise is it?

[mjwx]

This is just a visibility bias. Do you remember the last 10 officers who didn't give you a ticket? But you do remember those who did. There are many honest cops, but they are doing their job and not screwing with citizens so the citizens don't even notice them.

Officers dont hand out tickets in Australia, you get photo'd by a multi-nova (speed camera) and the Fines Enforcement Registry sends you a ticket with a bill to be paid in 55 days. Nice and de-personalised with no-one having to take actual responsibility.

Re:But how precise is it?

[JohnnyBGod]

Actually, the Spanish have this one pretty well covered. On mountain roads, there's usually "recommended speed" traffic signs before the tougher corners.

Re:But how precise is it?

[commodore64_love]

>>>You must live somewhere where the roads are pretty straight.

Yeah. In my post I was discussing interstates..... ya know: straight with curves designed for 80-100 mph limits.

Re:But how precise is it?

[JosKarith]

" If I didn't go so fast, I would have enough time to break"
I think that the laws of physics ensure you always have enough time to break...

Re:But how precise is it?

[dryeo]

We have those in BC as well. Usually the recommended speed is to low and the big problem is people who don't know the road and don't slow down enough.

Re:But how precise is it?

[dangitman]

So instead of a 6 hour trip from DC to my weekend home, I'd have an 8 hour trip.

That's a pretty insignificant price to pay to fight against government tyranny. Unless, of course, you're just a whiny little bitch who doesn't actually care about principles and has a sense of entitlement without responsibility.

Diplomatic Immunity...

[lewko]

...Has been revoked.

RT

[clinko]

@Pigspotter Behind You.

Keeping us Safe...

[lewko]

South Africa has the highest homicide rate in the world.

It's good to know that the police are concentrating on fast driving.

No doubt an increasingly broke and hopeless government has learned how to make more money. Err... I mean, save lives.

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness to these cops - they are the metro police, as in traffic police, they are not "real" cops although you wouldn't be able to tell the difference by their arrogance. Which is why they had to go lay a charge of criminal injuria with the real cops.

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[BasilBrush]

Well, second highest after Columbia.

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[treeves]

Wait , are you telling me that a sportswear company has a higher homicide rate than South Africa?

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[teh kurisu]

Don't they also have a much higher road fatality rate than other developed countries?

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[johan_from_cape_town]

Well I just loved how you threw that "fact" in. "South Africa has the highest homicide rate in the world." Wowwee. 1) Qualify the statement. If you said "of countries that reports homicide figures" then it would have at least halfway believable. 2) Do a bit of research. If you have a peek at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate then you will see South Africa is not even on the top of the list of countries reporting homicides! And what is maybe not clear is that the "Metro Police" handle traffic violations (traffic cops), while the "South African Police Service" is the actual police (and they don't care about traffic fines) and they are responsible with dealing with homicides.

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[guyminuslife]

No, it isn't.

Columbia is a clothing company, a university, and a district. Colombia is a South American country.

Had a prof who would take off 10 points on an essay for every time you misspelled the name of the country. Drove her up the wall.

Re:Keeping us Safe...

[chthonicdaemon]

It is true that South Africa has a high homocide rate (near 40 per 100000, with the world average at about 7 per 100000), but it is not quite the highest in the world, which is El Salvador according to that Wikipedia page. Even Nationmaster thinks they're only second.

Free Speech?

[DamienRBlack]

Freedom of Speech, you either have it or you don't... Although, I suppose this particular case is a little sticky. Do you think that when people are actively trying to avoid law enforcement, their speech is still protected? I side with the idea that it should still be protected. If someone posts a list labeled "100 best places to drop dead bodies off where they'll never be found", I don't think they've done anything wrong. At least not by posting the list, their research methods may be in question.

I suppose if it turns out that the tweeter is in fact a cop then they have all the right to fire him as I'm sure it is a breech of contract. But otherwise he/she should have the right. Johannesburg just needs to find better methods and stop their internal leaks, don't take it out on the messenger. Of course, I don't know what the actual laws of Johannesburg are, I'm just considering what they should be.

Re:Free Speech?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I suppose this particular case is a little sticky.

Not really. I find it funny that a woman has more rights to kill a human fetus, than we do to flap our OWN mouths and share ideas with other people. It's bass-backwards when killing is easier than speaking/emailing. The governments around the world are effectively applying muzzles to our mouths, and then spreading "The Big Lie" that you're free even though you're not. What a great way for the Lords to impose both population control AND silence dissent from the serfs at the same time.
.

Re:avoid contact with the police force

[MichaelSmith]

Recently a Springbok was also stopped by the Police

They must been hungry.

Racism? For real?

[Anonymous Coward]

On aspect of TFA struck me as awfully peculiar:

One thing is for certain, though: PigSpotter has deeply offended senior members of the JMPD. Some openly accused him of racism yesterday.

"This guy's use of words such as 'pigs' and 'bacon rashers' is alarming because you find that most of these officers are black and he is white. Why is nobody talking about this?" a police source said yesterday.

Is this a South Africanism, the notion of 'pig' being a racial epithet? As an American, 'pig' is a not at all uncommon term for the police; less polite perhaps than 'po-po' or 'Five Oh', but certainly nothing racial. Or is this merely a vague attempt to villify the guy, since the police know they're not exactly going to get the citizenry rallying behind them on this?

Moving the camera ?

[thrill12]

I think you are overstating the ease with which a camera may be moved. A speed camera has to be aligned exactly (angle/height/equipment etc) to measure the correct and valid speed of a passing vehicle. You cannot simply move it within a few minutes lest your measurements are out of bounds and any ticket you write is invalid - for people that have the energy to fight it before court, that is. I know that is the situation here in The Netherlands at least.
Actually, announcing speed traps is sometimes done by the police themselves here, and transmitted using a system called "TMC" (traffic message channel). Additionally, radio channels ask people to report them and announce them on RDS.
But in the end, some speed traps are never announced or the announcement is never received: last week, there was a motor driver who died as a result of a car braking for a speed trap. This could stir up debate that police, like in for example Sweden, are forced to announce the speed trap before it actually occurs.

Re:Moving the camera ?

[dangitman]

I think you are overstating the ease with which a camera may be moved. A speed camera has to be aligned exactly (angle/height/equipment etc) to measure the correct and valid speed of a passing vehicle. You cannot simply move it within a few minutes

Sure you can - they have car-mounted units and hand-held units. The car-mounted ones can even snap you while the police car is traveling at high speed in the opposite direction. It's not like accurate speed detection is difficult.

Re:Moving the camera ?

[KDR_11k]

Telling people where all the speed traps are is ineffective because then they can be certain nobody is going to check when none are announced on their road. Of course having people cause accidents just to brake for a speed trap isn't good either but those people should be thrown in jail for that.

What crime, exactly?

[mark-t]

I mean, it's kind of vague. They say he's suspected to be geting inside info, but I'm pretty sure you can't win a case on suspiscion alone.

Re:What crime, exactly?

[cappp]

TFA says he's being charged with 3 seperate offences, namley:

Criminal charges of defeating the ends of justice, crimen injuria and defamation

. As far as I can tell two of the charges link to the name calling - defamation and crimen injuria.

Crimen injuria is a crime under South African common law, defined to be the act of "unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another." Although difficult to precisely define, the crime is used in the prosecution of certain instances of road rage, stalking, racially offensive language, emotional or psychological abuse and sexual offences against children.

TFA seems to put quite a lot of weight on the purported racial overtones used in the messages which would account for both the dignity claims.

The "defeating" claim is a little less obvious. A South African legal overview site provided the following

There is no firm definition of what makes up 'defeating', also referred to as 'obstructing', in the context of this offence...Generally, the offence is described as committing an unlawful act intended to defeat or obstruct the administration of justice. The act must be unlawful, because there are a number of ways in which, it may be argued, the administration of justice can be obstructed without a crime being committed. A 'false' plea of 'not guilty', for instance, is not unlawful, nor is it unlawful to refuse to respond to a police request to assist in making an arrest....

Obstructing the police by, for instance, laying false charges, making false statements, refusing to answer questions or provide information and, generally 'frustrating' police activities. In the case of frustrating police activities, the court would have to distinguish between an act that interfered with the administration of justice and an act that interfered with the enforcement of law. Punishment for defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, or even for the attempt to do so, is frequently severe, and may consist of a fine or imprisonment, or both.

So it would seem to require that the act of communicating the location of these cameras would need to be classified as frustrating police activities. If there are any South African legal specialists around their input would be welcomed.

oh that's what I need

[ILuvRamen]

I know everyone's ususally like "booo police, yaaay speeding" but seriously, do we really need a coordinated system that basically encourages and allows people to ride my ass in the fast lane when I'm already going 10 over then pass me at like 100 MPH? No! Why? Are they a professional Nascar driver? NO AGAIN! Unless your piece of crap Prius is out of control, leave earlier if you're in such a damn hurry instead of driving like a maniac with a stopping distance of like a mile. That's pretty damn unsafe.
What they need is a system for tweeting about assholes in crappy, unsafe cars driving in crappy, unsafe way to the police so they can cut up their drivers licenses.

Re:oh that's what I need

[penguinchris]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you're in the fast lane and someone is going faster than you, the right thing to do is to move over if you can and let them pass. The other guy's an asshole, yes, but by not moving out of his way you can only make it worse, and that makes you an asshole too.

Laws vary by location, but generally it's considered that the "fast lane" isn't the lane you use when you're going over the speed limit, it's the lane you use for passing. Assuming we're not talking heavy traffic (or southern California), you should never just be cruising along in the fast/passing lane... if you're not actively passing someone, stick to one of the "slow" lanes.

The other guy could pass you on the right, but that's usually illegal and a much more dangerous situation. Moving out of the way is as much a safety thing as a not-being-an-asshole thing.

Re:oh that's what I need

[CarpetShark]

What they need is a system for tweeting about assholes in crappy, unsafe cars driving in crappy, unsafe way to the police so they can cut up their drivers licenses.

Good idea. Next time you post something I disagree with, I can just drive by your house, tweet your license plate to the cops, and have your life sufficiently destroyed that you never bother me again.

No, seriously, this is how the world works. That's what all those political scandals on TV are about: politicians employing the law to get rid of other politicians who are no longer deemed useful. Please don't encourage it.

Re:oh that's what I need

[russotto]

I know everyone's ususally like "booo police, yaaay speeding" but seriously, do we really need a coordinated system that basically encourages and allows people to ride my ass in the fast lane when I'm already going 10 over then pass me at like 100 MPH?

Yes. If you're not passing, you should be in the other lane. If you're passing very slowly, you shouldn't be.

No! Why? Are they a professional Nascar driver? NO AGAIN!

No; they can turn right.

Re:oh that's what I need

[cowboy76Spain]

I usually go to the slow lane whenever it fits me (I see I am able to and I won't have to go back in it for a reasonable time). I am fine with people passing me by the left, I am not racing anyone.

That said, if I am not gointg to the left because either of the conditions is not true, I am not going to rush because I have some idiot behind me who thinks he owns the road. I'll better have him hitting me from behind (--> his/her fault) than risking changing lane without the due safety (--> my fault).

Re:oh that's what I need

[Wordplay]

CA allows passing on the right. It also has a law that states (irrespective of speed) that slower traffic must keep right to allow faster traffic to proceed. That law still applies over the speed limit, though folks like the GP don't always seem to grok that.

Re:Racism? For real?

[inasity_rules]

Dude, its Africa. I've lived in Africa all my life, and people crying "racism" is very normal here. Its just another way of saying, "We don't like what you're doing and the easiest way to get you to go away is to call you a racist and then everyone will hate you."

It's all very childish. But that's African Politics for you. It is also sad that it distracts from the real racism that nobody ever notices...

do not feel bad for you

[pat sajak]

ffs is it so hard not to speed? unless you have a woman in labor in your vehicle what is your excuse really?

Re:do not feel bad for you

[CarpetShark]

Speeding is a very human thing to do. It's natural for people to want to test their limits. If you've never driven any faster than X, you can never be confident about driving at X. Only when you know you can handle X+10, do you feel really able to handle X. It's human nature, and it should be catered for, not stamped out.

Re:do not feel bad for you

[couchslug]

"It's human nature, and it should be catered for, not stamped out."

It IS catered for, on race tracks. Not all human nature = good judgement.

Re:do not feel bad for you

[ColdWetDog]

It's human nature, and it should be catered for, not stamped out.

This isn't Kindergarten. Lots of things are 'human nature' and should NOT be catered to - murder, rape, larceny, politics. That's why we have a legal framework in the parts of the world that sort of work - we are able to limit some of the less attractive bits of 'human nature'.

Just because it appeals to our baser nature, you thing we should 'cater' to that action? How much television do you watch?

Re:do not feel bad for you

[CarpetShark]

How much television do you watch?

I observe humanity enough to know that they need some moderate freedom, and that denial only leads to extreme behaviours.

Re:do not feel bad for you

[winwar]

"ffs is it so hard not to speed?"

Is it so hard to set speed limits based on road conditions and not arbitrary values?

Could you explain to me why a school zone is 20mph, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in a normally 25mph zone? Why an unsafe country road is 50mph but that improved 4 lane portion had the limit reduced to 35mph? Why the interstate speed limit ranges from 55mph to 75mph? Why some state highways have higher speed limits than some interstates?

Re:Racism? For real?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling majority (ANC) are incapable of: (1) Handling any criticism (2) Arguing/debating in a rational manner
Thanks to our recent history (apartheid) they are left with a large uneducated mass of people who remember only one thing (how bad "racism" is) and will believe what they are told without question. So anytime someone attempts to criticize or make a suggestion on how to do things in a sane way they are simply labeled as a racist and ignored. Due to the unquestioning stupidity of the masses this works every single time leaving little incentive for our utterly useless government to ever improve.

"Racist" here is the equivalent of accusing someone of being a "pedophile" in America, except on sterioids.

Do people still flash lights in the US?

[penguinchris]

When I was a kid I remember one of my parents telling me about people flashing their lights on the highway (I-90 thruway in NY) to warn of upcoming hidden police cars, I guess because I noticed someone doing it and asked why. Since that day, though, I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it again, and I've done a lot of highway driving (for my age anyway - driven across the US about five times, and lots of driving in between and at either end). I decided to do it once when I spotted a police car on the opposite side, but I think the people going the same way I was thought I was signaling them instead or indicating that I had a problem or something. Hard to tell since it doesn't seem to be a universal speed trap signal anymore.

Is it regional? Are there still places where this signal is common knowledge? I ask because the slashdot department line mentions this, and I haven't heard of it since I was a kid, as I said.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people in Australia tend to flash if/when they see a cop for several km either side...

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Fallingcow]

I do it, but I think I've only seen others do it a couple times. I'm not sure the people going the other way even understand what I'm "saying" to them.

In Missouri, so it's (sort of) known in the Midwest.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[inasity_rules]

But the risk is you might get fined for indecent exposure....

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Vegeta99]

I think most have given up. There was a recent case in PA where the judiciary made it specifically legal to do in the daylight, but at night, you can be cited for wrongful use of high beams.

I still do it, but nobody else does. When I was a kid, everyone still did it, but by the time I got my license, nobody did (I'm 24).

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Sulphur]

Isn't that hard to do whilst driving mate?

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Vegeta99]

I clarify: As far as I know, nobody has taken a ticket for illegal high beams far enough for a court to form an opinion on it. But the PA Supreme Court seems to be pretty liberal, a young guy just fought a ticket on the tint law. The law states you must not have tint that prevents someone from seeing inside, but regulation stated 70% translucency - the cops get out the meter, and if you're below that, you got a ticket. The cop could read 8pt font on the NY Times in the front seat, so the Supreme Court let it pass. IIRC, it was 35% translucent. That's what I have now that I live in AZ, with 5% in the back windows/windshield. 35% really isn't horribly dark. However, the limo tint in the back windows makes it hard to see a moron on a bike without a light behind you or a car with its lights off at night.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[CarpetShark]

I saw that it had a police number plate

How do you recognise these (even if you're not in my country)?

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[duk242]

In Australia, this is illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing#Australia You should still do it in case of an accident however to warn people coming up about it.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Inda]

Thumbs-down in the UK; just by the wing mirror. Flashing lights can mean so much, or so little.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[ex0duz]

Only in one state(QLD). And yet 40-60% of drivers still do it. Gotta love Australia.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[duk242]

Are you sure it's only QLD? The wiki page references only point to QLD sources but doesn't say that it's not illegal in other states...

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

The technique is known in Australia. At times I flash my lights at people even when there are no cops around, in the hope that if people are speeding they will at least slow down for a while (since there is a statistical correlation between speed and rate of accidents).

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[RealGrouchy]

No, they're too busy twittering.

- RG>

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[LanMan04]

I do this, but not on the highway. Most (big) highways in the US are divided and the median is quite wide; I don't think a driver going the other way would notice.

I DO do this on local streets though, all the time. When people are getting pulled over for doing 30 in a 35 that should really be a 45, that pisses me off. Quick flash o' the brights to let em know what's ahead.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Sirusjr]

Only if you are a dude.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[DavidTC]

I still do it.

Incidentally, whenever this has shown up in court, usually under bogus charges about having 'flashing lights' on your car (Which are referring to possessing lights that flash, not flashing a normal light.), the courts have almost always come down on the side of free speech, especially if the police tried to assert something like 'interfering with the police'. The courts have said that you simply cannot make it illegal to say 'police ahead', period. (They actually tried to do the same thing with CB radios, if people will recall.)

Incidentally, apparently, in Massachusetts, they're pulling people over, asking them menacing if they flashed on purpose, and when the person says 'No', they cite for defective headlights. Don't fall for it. Explain that you flashed your headlights on purpose, to ask oncoming drivers to not speed. Remember, people, first amendment. If you want to go around promoting people following the laws, even if you're only doing that when there are cops around, more power to you.

Do not give an estimation of the speed of the cars on the other side of the road, do not assert they were speeding, and if asked that specifically, point out you have no qualifications to estimate that. If they ask again, say you saw no sign of illegal activity, it was a warning to not start breaking the law. They're trying to get you for some sort of conspiracy or obstruction of justice charge. It is illegal to be an active participate in a crime even if your only part is warning people police are coming. It is not illegal if you have no knowledge of a crime, which you in fact don't, unless you're driving around with a radar gun aimed at the other side of the road or something.

Although note that flashing either way (either brights or off) at night has occasionally resulted in charges upheld in court. Flashing high beams at people at night is usually either flatly illegal, or illegal except for certain situations like they're driving with their headlights off, depending on jurisdiction. Likewise, operating without headlights is illegal, even for a second.

In the same way, a lot of the 'dim headlight' and 'no flashing highbeams' laws are not that specific about time of day, so flashing with your high beams might be illegal during the day, also.

Either check your local laws, or only flash lowbeams and only during the day. (Around here, the cops seem to disappear at night, anyway. I suspect they're not allowed to radar-detect people at night, due to the possibility of getting the wrong car. I've only seen them having pulled people over in town, I suspect for stuff like running red lights and stop signs.)

But there is no law, and no attempt to make a law has even been upheld, and no attempt to use an existing law has been upheld, about turning lowbeam headlights on and off during the day, except for 'threatening behavior', which requires them to be in front of you. (I.e., you're flashing your lights at them because they're going slow.)

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[TheGratefulNet]

growing up on the east coast of the US (northeast) seeing the flash of headlights to give us a heads-up was common practice 20 or more years ago.

then there were rumors of cops pulling you over if they caught you for 'obstruction of justice'.

cops can still get away with anything they want. they carry deadly force and can ruin you life so completely with so little effort. they are a force to be feared, to be sure.

when I see a blatant speed trap out in cali, now, I do flash my headlights but the calif cops are much less assholic than the ones I remember from back east. there also are a LOT less speed traps in the bay area; so much so that I never bothered to install (or even use) my radar detector anymore. but back east, it was *always* in my car and turned on.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[russotto]

Incidentally, apparently, in Massachusetts, they're pulling people over, asking them menacing if they flashed on purpose, and when the person says 'No', they cite for defective headlights. Don't fall for it. Explain that you flashed your headlights on purpose, to ask oncoming drivers to not speed. Remember, people, first amendment.

No, in the US, remember the FIFTH amendment. If the cops ask you if you flashed, flashed on purpose, how fast you were going, what color the light was, or anything but basic identifying information, you should not answer the question.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[DavidTC]

Nuh-uh.

If you fail to say that you did something on purpose, the police officer has grounds to write you a ticket on the premise that your equipment is defective, which means you have to show up in court.

Now, at that point, you can explain that you flashed on purpose, and the charges will be dismissed, but you'll still end up in court.

If you intend to communicate with another driver on the road with your actions, and your actions are not illegal (And turning on your headlights during the day is not illegal. Some cars have them on to start with.), then you should state that.

Then they not only can't get you into court for a nonsensical 'defective' charge, but the courts will flatly throw them out of their ear for any ticket they do write, and it's possible you could sue them for violating your civil right to free speech.

Normally your approach is best, because stating why you did something is also stating you did it, which is basically a confession.

But with headlights, not flashing them and having them flash anyway is illegal. You can't operate a motor vehicle with defective lights that flash randomly. At some point, to not be charged with that, you're going to have to admit you flashed them on purpose.

And while you don't have to admit why, it would be legal for the police to make it illegal to, for example, 'test' your headlights while driving. Like I said, it's illegal to use them to 'menace' people driving in front of you. (Which is also a speech thing, but obviously threatening people has very limited first amendment protection.)

But we know, thanks to various court cases, that they can't make it illegal to communicate via headlights, so you might as well admit you were doing that. (Which is, after all, the truth.)

Technically, they'd have to prove you were doing something else, like 'testing', and not 'communicating', which is impossible unless there was no one there, but that's the sort of thing it's very easy to fudge in court if no one testifies opposite them, so you're going to end up on the stand anyway.

Communication via headlights is legal. Just say that's what you did. Say it as soon as possible, so the entire ticket is bogus, don't wait until court to prove it. (At least one traffic stop and search has been entirely thrown out because the justification was 'driving flashed headlights' and the driver said he flashed on purpose and didn't have defective lights. The court said there was no justification for that stop.)

You might not want to admit what you were communicating, though. Maybe it was just your version of 'hello'. The court can't ever demand you explain what a communication you made actually means.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[Le Marteau]

> I do it, but I think I've only seen others do it a couple times. I'm not sure the people going the other way even understand what I'm "saying" to them.

Exactly. I'll do it for professional drivers (truckers, commercial vehicles, etc.) because they are more likely to understand what it means.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[BitZtream]

I still do it, because my father did.

I also signal trucks when they have sufficient room to merge in to my lane by flashing my headlights. It seems most of them no longer know of this signal either since very very few of them respond with the traditional 'thank you' blink after the merge.

I think its partially because my parents drove at a time when drivers had a higher average intelligence, before anyone and everyone drove and it was limited to generally people with a brain. It could also be because the idiots didn't live very long back when cares were ... less safe.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[DavidTC]

Um, yes, if the cop pulls you over for the actual reason of faulty equipment, they'll usually just demand you fix it, and most of the time won't even require you show up at the police station. I've had a broken headlight and got a warning. (I had been loaned a vehicle and didn't even know it, and I was rather pissed when the cop told me.)

What I was discussing was, for lack of a better term, a 'hostile cop', who is not happy you were warning people they were down the road, so pulled you over for flashing your lights.

If you fail to admit that you did it on purpose, if your lights are randomly broken and 'come on by themselves', he can, indeed, write you an actual ticket that requires you to pay an actual fine, regardless of whether or not they work later. There's no requirement you get any warning at all, cops can ticket you for broken equipment, and in some cases keep you from driving the car at all. (Although not, I expect, for broken headlights in the day.)

You're talking about 'actual equipment malfunction', I'm talking about 'asshole cop coming up with a reason to write people tickets for exercising their 1st amendment rights'. And remaining silent, although usually a good idea, let's them write a ticket for bogus reasons that you then have to deal with.

Sometimes it's not a good idea to remain silent with a cop, especially if they're abusing their position and are trying to get you on clearly bogus stuff that you could shoot down in a second. I mean, taken to the extremes, if you're breaking into your own house, and a cop asks what you're doing, don't you think you should state that you live there, even though, legally, you don't have to? They have to prove you don't have the right to be there to actually convict you of trespassing, but they can bring you, right then, on suspicion of trespassing with much less evidence, until they locate the homeowner. Whereas if you do state you live there, and they lock you up without checking, hello, huge lawsuit.

Taking the right to remain silent can't be used to assume guilt, but sometimes guilt, at least enough guilt to get you arrested or ticketed, can be assumed from the situation, either by a cop that actually thinks that, or just one that is an asshole. In those cases, it is reasonable to state information that corrects the cop, to assure the honest cop and let him leave, and to screw up the dishonest cop's justification for charging you.

Saying 'my lawyer can destroy this ticket in court', while true for 'defective equipment', is not very helpful when it means you have to really show up in court.

Re:Do people still flash lights in the US?

[ex0duz]

I am from VIC, and this is what i found.

http://www.aussiev8.com.au/legislation-modified-car-laws/21764-high-beam-flashes.html

http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4966&sid=3cee6e67fce815806dce2bfbb09cbc4d

So no, i don't think it's illegal to signal cops by flashing lights, but there is another aspect, and that is flashing HIGH BEAMS within 200 meters(or even just having high beams on without 200 meters of oncoming traffic). So i think that if you use normal lights(during the day), you should be fine. I am not sure about if you turn off your lights at night, because then they can probably book you for not having your lights on at night. So basically, in the day time, you should be able to just use normal lights to signal instead of high beams. I hope that clears it up for you.. and i hope you continue to signal to others. I know i do, and will :p

Re:Racism? For real?

[beuges]

It is a South Africanism, in that everything here gets turned into a race issue whether it has anything to do with race or not. Despite the fall of apartheid and having a democratically elected government, the new 'leadership' still has a vested interest in creating the perception that whites are still out to get blacks - it's a nice diversion to distract their voters away from the government's corruption and hypocrisy. Everything the ANC seems to do these days creates the impression that they deliberately keep their own supporters beaten down in order to retain their support, blaming the supporters misfortune on racism and 'the legacy of apartheid'. I get the impression that we'll still be blaming apartheid in another 50 years time... that is assuming that the ANC doesn't finally give up all pretenses and just publicly turn the country into another Zimbabwe, rather than trying to do it behind the scenes.

An unfortunate side-effect of the continuous cry of racism is that a (hopefully small and insignificant) number of the youth of today are growing up indoctrinated with the belief that everything is still a race issue. A key example of this is the leader of the ANC youth league, Julius Malema. While he's generally ridiculed universally for his stupid utterances and ridiculous beliefs, the sad reality is that he actually believes in what the rest of us consider to be drivel. And he is poised to rise into the leadership of the ANC and therefore the country within the next decade or two.

Every time you read a report of something being connected to racism in South Africa, take it with a grain of salt. Yes, there is still a lot of racism going on, but it's the same sort that you experience anywhere else... nowhere near what we used to have. It's sad to see the ANC that fought so hard to end apartheid is now working so hard to ensure that it prevails.

Re:Racism? For real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, this is sooooooo true!

free speech

[matushorvath]

Ah, the ultimate free speech test. Can you talk about things that government does not like? Will SA pass? Stay tuned.

Ultimate solution

[srussia]

No speed limits

Safety: Dangerous drivers will eventually kill themselves off. Let natural selection follow its course. There will be collateral damage at the start, but things will eventually get better.

Money: The state gets dead at-fault drivers' estate. No camera costs, minimal enforcement expense.

Freedom: Everyone gets to go at the speed they're comfortable with.

Re:Ultimate solution

[Dan541]

Freedom: Everyone gets to go at the speed they're comfortable with.

That's a bad thing. Too many idiots holding the rest of us up. There should be laws that require slow vehicles to pull over and let the rest of us pass.

Re:Ultimate solution

[commodore64_love]

There are. Many states have "left lane for passing only" and I've seen cops ticket drivers that disobey.

Re:Ultimate solution

[Dan541]

In Australia you're only supposed to use the right lanes (we drive on the left) of the freeway for overtaking. But I always stay in the left lanes because they are the fastest.

This is the opposite of how your supposed to legally drive but people have an obsession with getting into the right lane, being oblivious to everything around them and then exit across all 4 lanes of traffic because they are to comatose to read the exit signs.

When driving in the United Kingdom I was surprised to see that other people actually know how to drive. Then to come home was a shock. I don't know what the US is like; hopefully better than Australia.

Re:Ultimate solution

[smi.james.th]

I agree with you there, I'm South African, and the time I spent in the UK it seemed like paradise on the roads. Except on motorways, in the UK there isn't really opportunity to go fast, because the roads are narrow and twisty, and I love driving on that sort of roads, so I was more than happy to stick to 30mph. It's the long, straight, boring roads here that are a temptation to speed.

Re:Ultimate solution

[commodore64_love]

>>>When driving in the United Kingdom I was surprised to see that other people actually know how to drive. Then to come home was a shock. I don't know what the US is like; hopefully better than Australia.

No.

I encounter a lot of those "passing lane blockers" in the US. They ride side-by-side with other cars, preventing passage, and in violation of state law. I typically beep-beep my horn to wake them up from their comatose stupor. Often it does not work so I lay on the horn until they move, so I can use the passing lane as its intended to be used (to pass).

Re:Ultimate solution

[Golddess]

and in violation of state law

A MD state trooper once rode my ass for 7 miles in the so-called "passing lane". I was doing 60 in a 55 (normally I do much faster, but was going that slow precisely because of the trooper), and aside from following me right up until I turned into the parking lot outside my work, the trooper did nothing.

If I had actually broken a law, surely the trooper would have pulled me over? Even if he was waiting to try and get me for speeding, once he realized I wasn't going to go any faster why wouldn't he have gotten me for the law you claim I was breaking?

Yes it is

[SmallFurryCreature]

What you got to remember is that the world is filled with people with very small penisses who can only think of the world as them vs the state and everyone else.

They think their car is a source of income for the state when even the simplest look at the figures will show that cars COST the state far more then they pay in road taxes and such things. This in itself is not a problem. Society needs roads and transport but if you start to base your political outlook on a basic misconception (road taxes meet the costs of road construction and maintenance) it all goes wrong. Because then you start thinking that public transport, school and medical facilities must be paid for by their users as well. And not by your traffic fines.

Even if traffic fines were a serious source of income, as in not just meeting the costs of police but deliviring more! then who cares? What do I care for a tax for assholes. Don't be an asshole and you are not taxed.

But as you see from the majority of reactions, a lot of people are assholes and come up with bizarre explanations of why they should be allowed to speed.

It has been proven time and time again that if everybody drove the same speed, as indicated by people who are smarter then you, traffic would flow a lot more smoothly. The ultimate example was given a few years ago in a simulation with cars crossing each other on a busy level intersection with no trouble whatsoever.

The problem with speeding is NOT wether you can or cannot handle it, but if everyone else on the same road can. Considering cars are the biggest killer out there, it seems clear that people can't.

But don't worry, the police are all corrupt, you can drive 50 miles over the speed limit and when you kill someone you just shrug it off as an accident.

Because nobody is reponsible for their own actions and should never face the consequences. Oh and if someone dares to slam their car door in front of your house, the swat team should be called out and a speedbump the height of everest installed to slow those demons down.

Re:Yes it is

[DavidTC]

Hey, moron, the cops may cost the government in general money, but that has fuck all to do with the fact it's a huge income source for the local police department.

And if you haven't noticed, people are bitching about speedtraps, which are the exact opposite of 'everybody drove the same speed'. They are, in fact, 'everyone dangerously drives at different speeds semi-randomly as some people know about the speed limit change, and some people don't, and the police don't want people to know about the change'.

Re:Yes it is

[Dan667]

A big problem is a lot of people think the world can work in some type of utopian harmony. The sooner they understand it can't the better.

On the other hand, making money under the guise of public safety is both wrong and dangerous. You have the right to face your accuser. Ever wonder why in the US you don't get a criminal charge for a ticket? The ticket is trivial to fight for ones in the US and the more people that fight them make these cameras unprofitable. They have also been uninstalled because they are just stupid in a lot of places.

Re:Yes it is

[TheGreatHegemon]

It has been proven time and time again that if everybody drove the same speed, as indicated by people who are smarter then you, traffic would flow a lot more smoothly

You do realize the posted speed limit is lower than the speed recommended by people who are smarter than [i]you[/i], right? (Do you automatically assume that we're all dimwitted?)

Ignore the above point, really, I don't care about surface streets. On most surface streets, I stick to the posted speed limits anyway. However, state speed limits (IE max of 65 in california) has [i]nothing[/i] to do with road conditions. Do you even know why they put that speed limit, or are you just being a righteous prick? (Here's a hint, it wasn't added for safety). Freeway speed limits are detrimental.

Re:Yes it is

[JohnnyBGod]

Mod parent up.

Re:Yes it is

[phorm]

Even if traffic fines were a serious source of income, as in not just meeting the costs of police but deliviring more! then who cares? What do I care for a tax for assholes. Don't be an asshole and you are not taxed.

Except that when something becomes a source of revenue, then the standards for the actual "offence" often start sneaking lower. I'm Canadian - so I'll use KM's for reference - and we have similar issues with limits here, perhaps even moreso in my province as the laws just got "revised" again.

Limit starts out at 100 (110km=90 miles). Revenue is low, so the limit gets lowered to 90. Then to 80. This is a complain I often hear about from south of the border. I don't see that as much here, but what I *do* see is construction zones everywhere (where fines are double), with crazy limits. 100, then 80, then 100, then 70, then 90, etc, etc. I can live with that as I tend to know the zones by now, but it tends to cause a lot of snarl-ups and confusion when the limits change every 5 minutes or less for large stretches of highway (in areas where the "construction" hasn't yet started or is finished).

What I worry about most is the broad powers of digression in handing out tickets. The "legal limit" has dropped down to near about 1 beer (depending on your BMI). If you squeal your tires, that might be considered "stunting." And the scariest part is in passing.

If you're passing and the "other guy" blocks your pass, you may end up with a "street racing" charge for accelerating to complete the pass. This is the scariest one to me, as there are plenty of your "assholes" here that happily go 20 under until they hit the passing area, then speed up and block passing. Worse, you often get the variety who see somebody engaging in a pass, and speed up when the passer is trying to get by in the oncoming lane. Now in addition to having your heart hammering as you just slip in before an incoming car comes up, you can get nailed with a ticket for street-racing and have your car impounded...

Back up an tweeting.

[Gary van der Merwe]

I't seems he is using a borrowed cellphone, and is retweeting. Go @PigSpotter! http://twitter.com/PigSpotter/

Re:Racism? For real?

[supermies]

Interestingly enough, if you replace "Africa" with "America", you still have an accurate statement.

yet in some areas you can do 65 in a 55 don't get

[Joe The Dragon]

yet in some areas you can do 65 in a 55 and you don't get a ticket and the cop just passes you by. Same thing with 70 in a 65.

Re:Racism? For real?

[Raenex]

You can just get rid of the adjective completely. Politics is childish all the world over.

Yes it is... um Nope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in an ideal world where everyone was traveling the same speed, driving would be safer and more efficient.

But, hey, welcome to the real world where we have overloaded 18 wheelers moving goods from point A to point B and which slow down to nothing going up hills and speed up going down, we have grandma doing 30% less than the speed limit, we have someone fiddling with their phone, make-up, or arguing with a passenger, we have construction vehicles, etc. etc. etc. and they are all traveling in the middle lane, and sometimes in the fast lane.

Tell me how we can get them all going the same speed and maintain that speed. It's impossible....

So, again, welcome to the real word where simulations go to die....

South african police

[Vektuz]

Don't they know that in south africa its 50% off if you pay the police in cash when they stop you?

Re:Racism? For real?

[smi.james.th]

Here in South Africa, pretty much everything that the powers-that-be don't like is labelled "racism". The race card has become the national joke. In essence, every time someone suggests that some system or department or whatever is ineffective, that person is branded as a racist.

Welcome to South Africa, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm Pigspotter!

[The_Steel_General]

Or should it be Pigspartacus?

TSG

Speed trap warning signs

[acid06]

Here in Brazil all speed traps must have warning sign placed 300 meters before it, otherwise any fine is illegal. The speed traps also cannot be positioned facing the traffic, ie., it can only measure your speed after you went past it. Hiding the police car is illegal and officers must keep the lights over their cars turned on while doing a speed trap operation (but this is difficult to dispute unless you actually notice and record it somehow).

Overall, you need to not be paying attention at all to get a fine here. And lots of drivers still do, specially if they're drunk.

Re:avoid contact with the police force

[smi.james.th]

By Springbok the AC meant part of the Springbok Rugby team, the country's national team. He's mistaken though, I think, the player in question, if we're thinking of the same event, is a prop for the Blue Bulls, which is Pretoria's local team, not the Springboks.

Revenue to state general fund would help

[swb]

In the US, mandating that all traffic citation monies go to the state's general fund would go a long way towards eliminating most of the bullshit speed traps. Given the general scarcity of resources, it would be impossible to justify speed traps as a good use of law enforcement and we'd probably see little of it.

There may actually be some speed enforcement that makes sense (ie, design flaws in some places along some roads where there have been high accident rates) and possibly places where citizens might demand it (roads through residential areas where people complain about speeding), but overall I'd suspect it would be far diminished.

A brave legislator tried to introduce a bill to do this here in Minnesota, and naturally all the small town & suburban cops lined up to oppose it.

Their primary argument was pretty bold, basically "we need to get paid to enforce these laws or we won't do them because they cost too much to enforce" -- as if they only enforce laws that are money makers ("Murder? Sorry, too expensive.").

South Africa actually has *GOOD* speed laws!

[urdak]

Most commenters in this discussion badmouth the traffic cops, and speeding laws, because they assume that these laws suck in South Africa, just like they suck in their own country like the USA or the UK and so on.

But in fact, when I visited South Africa, I was suprised to see that the situation is actually different - and better - in South Africa; In much of the rest of the world, speed limits are relatively arbitrary. E.g., the speed limit used to be 50 miles per hour throughout the US (although this changed somewhat in recent years), and is 90 km per hour in highways throughout Israel. Since modern cars can easily go much more than that, drivers have gotten used to break the speed laws all the time, and (rightly) feel the cops are pigs (to use the original poster's terms) and are out to get them - not to catch criminals.

But in South Africa, my experience (from driving along and around the N2 for about a week) is that the speed limit on the highway is *not* arbitrary. Every few miles, the speed limit changes depending on actual road conditions - sometimes when the road is bad, it is just 90 km/h, but in good stretches, it becomes 120km/h. My feeling in South Africa was that indeed, someone who goes over the posted speed limit is really doing something wrong. It is really dangerous to go over 120, and when the speed limit says 90, you would really be stupid to do over 90 because there is a real reason why this limit, and not 120, was posted.

When the speed limits make sense, and only criminals and crazy drivers break them, why would you want to fight a system to catch those criminals and crazy drivers?

So all the people badmouthing South Africa on this thread - better learn from South Africa (at least on this issue...) instead of just assuming that everything is wrong in that country.

Why not just use Trapster?

[AugstWest]

It's pretty handy to have:

http://www.trapster.com/

And no, I'm in no way related to the development or publishing of the app, I just find it funny that they would crack down on someone using twitter for this when there are full-blown apps to handle it.

Here the radio station does it.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Where I live one of the local radio stations broadcasts the locations of speed traps and stops for seatbelt checks (wearing seatbelts being mandatory here).

Re:Racism? For real?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Neither America nor Africa are adjectives.

Re:avoid contact with the police force

[MichaelSmith]

By Springbok the AC meant part of the Springbok Rugby team,

Yeah, I know.

Re:Racism? For real?

[mjwx]

Neither America nor Africa are adjectives.

Racist.

The cops have no standing, evidence nor cause...

[Marful]

I fail to see how public officials acting in a public capacity performing a public action while in public, that are not actively involved in a current criminal investigation have any expectation of privacy when doing public things in a public capacity in the public.

And given that a when a speed trap is set up, it is not a criminal investigation because no crime has occurred yet for there to be a criminal investigation of, and you cannot charge someone with a crime that has not been committed yet, nor can you charge someone with potentially committing a crime, thus disclosing to the public via electronic communication what public officials (police officers) acting in a public capacity (enforcing the law), while in public (outside in plain sight) is not interfering with a criminal investigation because no such criminal investigation exists involving the activity of those officers performing their speed trap.


However, abuse under the color of authority IS A FEDERAL CRIME which is what the police officers arresting such an individual for would be committing.

Also, wouldn't defamation be a civil issue and not criminal? What is their "standing" that they are claiming these disparaging words (being described as a "pig" or "incompetent") are causing damage to their public image? Especially as these disparaging words are not targeted at a specific individual and fall under "freedom of speech" given that they are a public governmental entity?

It is evident that these police officers are petty and vindictive and only taking action out of malice in retaliation for perceived disparaging words said against their competence. Their actions which, in my opinion, only seem to bring to light their competency (or lack thereof).

Re:Racism? For real?

[JohnnyBGod]

Aw, come on, someone mod this guy Funny, already.