Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Won't Take Down Undercover Cop Page In Australia
New submitter jaa101 writes "Facebook has refused a request from Australian police to take down a page with details of undercover police vehicles saying it cannot stop people taking photos in public places. The original story is paywalled and it doesn't give a link to the relevant page which seems to be here . This page for the state of Victoria has 12000 likes but a similar page for the state of Queensland has over 34000, and there are other Australian pages too."
If the police are being outed undercover then don't whine when crime occurs.
If "Law Enforcement" didn't regularly abuse their sweeping privileges, maybe this wouldn't even have come up?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
...if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Are they now saying that information can be misused by wrong-doers, and that privacy actually has a value?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
saying saying it cannot stop people...etc.. typo?
There isn't really any problem here, this is just the Vic Police overreacting. The vehicles are 100% obviously cop cars, with exactly the same antenna and will always have some form of lightbar inside or outside the vehicle. Anyone who can't spot an undercover cop in Australia needs their eyes checked.
Anonymous Coward
Unmarked != undercover... or is that what Aussies call their unmarked cars?
Everyone is neglecting the fact that this isn't about outing police officers who are undercover. It's about outing unmarked police cars, which serve no purpose other than to try to catch people for traffic violations and in fact are going to be worse at deterring crime than a marked police vehicle, since the sight of a cop car is a powerful deterrent. It's not like undercover cops drive unmarked cop cars with light bars and antennas; that would be a dead giveaway. Frankly, I like police vehicles to be visible so that I can find them in the event of an emergency if I need help. I care far less about fining the people who are driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit.
Fear the penguin.
The list of people following the page is a good list of possible suspects. The police should be thankful of Facebook for doing their job for them.
They are outing undercover police cars, not the police themselves. Big difference. Given the many makes and models they use and how common those vehicle types are on the roads, a public database is not going to put a dent in any undercover operation at all.
These aren't fucking undercover. They're unmarked. And there's a huge fucking difference. And you're a fucking idiot.
Seems it aint so easy to do the same in the YouEssay -- at least not with an actual officer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/melissa-walthall-texas-undercover-cop-facebook-arrest_n_1970479.html
So far, two people have been caged for that.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Yeah this is usually the case, criminals already know what the make and model of the unmarked cars are.
Sucks when the law works against you, doesn't it?
Good for facebook - teach these little hitlers that society works both ways. Being a part of the executive doesn't provide you with special privilege.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
No no, they don't don't ;)
If you find a single biped not abusing sweeping privileges, please check for a pulse...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
If you find a single biped not abusing sweeping privileges, please check for a pulse...
My wife gave me Sweeping Privileges, but I declined. Also, I am not Marty Feldman.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Yes they are not "undercover" as such but just unmarked or covert cars. The are generally easy to spot unless they are behind you. New South Wales Police are even taking advantage of this with a special batch of 50 highway cars highly marked and extremely visible from the rear, but almost covert from the front. They even have photos of their covert cars on their own Facebook pages. http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.420791607956995.85178.217834118252746&type=3
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
"We're going to have shut down that Godforsaken internet before it cripples our ability to enforce the law and protect the citizens." Safety? How can you get any safety when you didn't eat your rights?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
How is this any different than an app like Trapster which just allows motorists to warn each other of speed traps?
If you think an unmarked police car's primary purpose is catching people "driving 5 mph over the speed limit" then you've been listening to too much reactionary "why don't they go after real criminals?!" and "don't they have anything better to do?!" arguments, usually heavily promoted by people who have been caught breaking the law for 'trivial' reasons like speeding.
Unmarked cars *are* used for "better things" than catching speeding motorists (even ones doing a mere 5 over - no cop stops you for 5 over, especially not an unmarked unit, you also get a 10% leeway to account for speedometer inaccuracy so the only time that "5 over" would be even close to something you could be pulled for would be in a 30 mph zone) - they're used primarily in the investigation and containment of stolen cars and for major crimes involving motor vehicles such as drugs, burglaries, etc.
They certainly do stop ordinary motorists if something flags you to them (impaired driving, excessive speed, tax/insurance issues etc) but they're not there to "catch you out" - you make it sound like it's some trick to make you break the law when you think they're not looking.
I know for a fact that Cheshire Police in the UK doesn't care if you know what unmarked cars they use - I have seen them personally show large, unobscured photographs of them with number plates showing clearly in public settings - because they're not designed to trick you, they're designed to be less visible than a panda car so they can tail suspect vehicles more easily, and your "5 over" driver is not such a motorist.
corporations have no public responsibility. they are only responsible to their shareholders.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Police reaction to speeding in the UK and US is often quite different. The last time I took the wheel in the UK I made a 220 km journey, over mostly M roads, in an hour and got no tickets despite passing several marked police cars. I presume it's because I always stayed left except to pass, was diligent about signaling and generally being polite in my driving behavior aside from the speed.
In contrast, a co-worker of mine received a ticket for 2 mph over the limit last year in the US.
Crims hung out on Flinders street outside the WTC police offices and wrote down the rego plates of cars going in and out. It created a bit of a stir but they are entitled to hang out in public places and write things down.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
But the fact of the matter is that the focus of the police should be on preventing crime, not on increasing revenue. A clearly marked police car is the most effective thing there is for ensuring that everyone around is driving safely. You stick a cop car in the road and people will drive quite carefully. Unmarked cars are specifically meant to not be observed by people so that they will commit crimes in front of them and thus get ticketed, crimes that potentially would not have been committed if the car had been clearly visible. To me, this is like making the argument that police officers shouldn't wear uniforms so that muggers will beat up people in front of them and get caught, rather than the beatings never happening in the first place. I understand and respect that you can make an argument both ways here, that there is the potential for the mugger to commit crimes later, etc. but in my personal opinion, it is of dubious morality to allow people to be injured today in hopes of avoiding injuring people tomorrow. When I'm being assaulted, I want to be able to look around and run to the nearest cop car, not to miss it 'cause it's unmarked.
Ultimately, my complaint is that the motorists who get "caught" by unmarked cars who wouldn't by marked cars are the 5-10 over motorists. If someone is truly driving dangerously, they're not going to stop because of a marked car. If you're driving 100 on the freeway, you can't slow down fast enough upon seeing a cop car to not get caught. If you're driving drunk, you can't magically sober up because you saw a cop. The people get caught by unmarked cars rather than marked ones are the 5 over motorists, so I fail to see how they provide sufficiently valuable service to outweigh the crimes they fail to prevent.
Anyways, it's all anecdotal, and there are arguments for both sides. YMMV.
Fear the penguin.
Yes you have to be careful using web 2.0 in the USA
They might get you under a "retaliation" law
http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-felony-police-facebook-508/
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If they're anything like the US, they're not really using the cars for fighting crime, they're using them to capriciously enforce traffic laws to generate revenue. It's quite a clever scam over here. They keep the enforcement just low enough that people get comfortable driving at a speed that is safe, but exceeds the posted limit. As long as they don't get too greedy, they can pick off a driver here and there and soak them with fines.
If they enforced better, either people would wise up and stick to the limit, or they would clamor for more just limits - the speed limit is a tax on your time that ought to be weighed against the presumed benefits. They use a mix of marked and unmarked vehicles (though the unmarked vehicles are still pretty identifiable by their dark color, illegal (but who's going to enforce it....) window tint levels, and utility equipment mounted to the front.) to make sure that people don't notice where the enforcement is taking place.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
See, I think this could be due to observation bias and a self-selecting bias. You're probably a good, upstanding citizen and so are the majority of your family and friends. Therefore, the vast majority of the police experiences you, your family, your friends, and your co-workers have is traffic tickets. This doesn't mean there *aren't* dozens of police who do nothing but write traffic tickets to earn money for the PD all day every day, but I don't believe that's all the cops are actually doing.
Looking at these pictures, though, these police cars are about as well camouflaged as the so-called "stealth" cars my local police department uses. Look guys, nobody other than cops has that much crap stuck to their dash, that many antennas attached to the car, or has hand-operated headlamps attached to the driver and passenger side windows. If you're aware at all and know what to look for, unmarked cars are as subtle as a fart on a long elevator ride.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
It's nice that you've completely ignored the article in question, so I'll try and clarify.
This article is about Australian unmarked police cars, whose only purpose pretty much is to pull over speeding cars.
Because any police car can pull over any car for a random alcohol or drug test, they don't need to be in an unmarked car or have reason (ie, impaired driving). They're legally entitled to do it to anyone, any time, if they are driving a car.
Because in Australia there are no tax/insurance issues, because that's covered by the road authority and police have no authority to even ask you about it.
Because in most states of Australia there is no 10% leeway any more, it's a fixed leeway. You can and do get fined for being 5km/h over the signed limit. I once got fined for being 5km/h over because the road change from a 60 zone to a 50 zone and the unmarked police car behind me thought I didn't adjust me speed fast enough.
In Australia the unmarked cars really are there to catch people speeding, it's their primary purpose.
So perhaps you should pay attention to the context of the story, especially when every other reason you've listed as a purpose for unmarked police cars do not exist in Australia.
Over the last month unmarked police cars have been all over the highways. They are patrolling out on the road and they stopped my wife for doing 106km/h in a 100km/h zone on a steep downhill section of the road. My wife was in 3rd gear to slow the car down, but like everyone else here, she didn't ride her brakes to keep it under 100. She now has to pay $100 dollars or take it to court. I have heard numerous similar stories, I'd be OK if they were in some of our dangerous curves or in school zones where idiots keep speeding, but they're not. Personally I think the unmarked cars should be strictly for investigation unless they see something dangerous. Oh and before you say speeding is dangerous, piss off, 106 isn't excessive speed. In fact I support calls for the 110km/h zones to be expanded and even 120 on the divided freeways, roads are better now, cars are better now, we don't need the old limit. Conversely, if people drive too fast in poor conditions/faster than they or their car can handle, then throw the book at them.
The thin blue line should be thinner around consensual crime, and around extracting cash from motorists by parking themselves on mis-zoned "speeding hotspots", and thicker around thefts and violent crime.
The police near us regularly set up speed traps along a six-lane, divided road zoned at 60kmh (it was zoned thus 20 years ago, when it was just a two-lane road, and hasn't been changed as the road's grown) or just before the onramp to the freeway, where the speed limit changes from 60kmh to 110kmh over a few hundred metres.
Meanwhile, when some friends of ours were robbed, the police just told them to call their insurance company, and check out the local pawn shops.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Additionally, due to inaccuracies in speedometers and poor reaction times (e.g. to changing slopes of hills), it's impossible to drive at or under 60 without having your speedo sitting more like 53-55, in which case you will in fact be driving dangerously by going significantly slower than the flow of traffic. The problem with speed limits/speeding is that speeding is not inherently dangerous (at reasonable speeds; certainly driving 150 is). Rather, moving at a significantly different speed than the flow of traffic is dangerous. I am in fact putting myself and those around me in more danger by driving at 60 if everyone around me is going 75 than by driving 75 with them. The answer certainly isn't to abolish speed limits, but the point is that strict enforcement of speed limits increases revenue, not safety.
Fear the penguin.
Yes, the "stealth" is often not particularly stealthy though. :-)
Fear the penguin.
I do agree with you, though I do think my fine for not hitting the brakes after a sign change was a bit harsh.
You're supposed to adjust speed slowly to avoid increased danger. Everyone hitting the breaks at the 50 sign wouldn't be safer at all.
But the point is actually that the cops in such cars are out there to raise revenue.
I'm not complaining about any fines, I used to pay them and get on with life - I now live in the inner city and don't even own a car.
I'm saying these cars are pretty much exclusively for the purpose of raising money, not for making the place safer, as police should be doing.
Objecting to unmarked cars because their purpose is counter-productive and a waste of police resources is not the same as whining about a speeding fine.
I object in principle to the laws on speeding, but when you speed you know the possible consequences and must accept them. We have speed cameras all over the place here that get a hell of a lot of people for it.
You speed, you pay the fine.
Unmarked police cars are a completely different issue. They do not contribute to safer roads, and do not contribute to a safer society. They are a waste of police power.
Jo ham is a fucking idiot. Just my personal estimation.
My username begins with a small letter and has an underscore in it. Just my personal estimation.
Also, I'm sorry about your speeding fine. Maybe take more care next time, eh? Log in too - more carelessness!
I should actually add a little more to that and point out that I have seen (and also been subject to, but did not speed up) unmarked police cars tailgating on freeways in an attempt to make people speed up to just over the limit and pull them over.
That's not only fairly dangerous, but should say a little more about the intent of the cars when they resort to such tactics.
you've really never heard of inaccurate speed cameras or insufficient training in how to use them?
it happens
A portion of NSW speed cameras have been installed by Poltech International, some of whose installed cameras gave wildly inaccurate readings in Victoria. ... .... ...
Some motorists claimed they had been booked doing speeds their vehicles were not capable of reaching
Last month, following checks of these claims, it emerged that three of the cameras were faulty.
The readings had led to fines and licence suspensions for some motorists.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
because speed cameras have never been found to be faulty, badly calibrated, or officers insufficiently trained in their use?
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Why not brake gradually before the sign? Just because the limit changes at the sign doesn't mean you have to go at that speed right up until that point.
If there's a radar-equipped car on that stretch it is just even more prudent to do it that way, especially if there's a 10% tolerance on Australia's tickets.
except odometers only have to be accurate to within 10% for a car to be roadworthy
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
because speed cameras have never been found to be faulty, badly calibrated, or officers insufficiently trained in their use?
My point still stands. It might be a pain in the ass, but a ticket issued under such circumstances is invalid and you can have it dismissed in court. My wording was less verbose than necessary to handle all the edge cases.
even if we ignore the fact that they're not actually doing anything wrong and therefore shouldn't be liable for anything - there's still the point of it wouldn't be possible to link any specific accident to the page.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Sometimes you don't have the option.
There is a fun one near where I am at the moment: it's an 80kmph highway. However, it's currently Canada's third season of the year: road repair.
Just on the leeside on the corner of a hill is a sudden drop do to 60 kmph...with 'Fines are doubled when workers are present"
That said, the sign marking the site of the speed change is far in advance of workers (so no worker safety issue), there have been no police cars trapping it, and no one is actually braking for it (so no driver safety issue so far).
Still, it's one of those times where you just don't have any advanced warning unless already familiar with the road.
It's worth noting that signs are not always visible with sufficient distance to change speed before them.
The laws here state that you're supposed to have time after a change of limit sign to adjust speed before you can be fined.
In that case it was a suburban area that entered a shopping strip and the signs had recently been changed. It used to be 60 along the whole stretch.
The 50 sign was not visible until you were very close to it.
With speeding tickets here you are assumed at fault unless you can prove otherwise, so despite the fact these things had changed and there was no signage to indicate that, and also the sign was not visible until too close, and that my speed was acceptable by the legal distance after the sign, the cost to dispute it without being sure of victory (and costs) was prohibitive for me at the time - this was years ago.
Beside that, I said it was harsh, and believe it was, but I paid the fine and don't gripe about it because it was an unmarked car. In that stretch braking would have been unsafe and I would have done the same with a marked car behind.
Thing is though, marked cars almost never pull you over for that stuff, because they actually have priorities other than revenue.
Given that I didn't actually break a law, and they waited until well after I was at the right speed before pulling me over, it was a quota system in play and they were under quota and I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I object in principle to the unmarked cars, my ticket was just an example of how they are sometimes misused. But even beside that misuse, they are still a waste of police resources, and I objected to them long before my own personal experience with them.
In the past month, I've passed three marked state trooper cars on the expressway while doing 80+ in a 55mph. None of them gave me a second look because I drive like you described above - proper signaling, staying the driving lane except to pass, etc
since the sight of a cop car is a powerful deterrent
Bull. People regularly slow down at the sight of cop cars or traffic cameras, but speed right back up again once they know theyre past them. It doesnt deter anything, it just postpones it.
which serve no purpose other than to try to catch people for traffic violations
Oh the horror, cops going after folks for violating the law.
Frankly, I like police vehicles to be visible so that I can find them in the event of an emergency if I need help
...Im pretty sure there is a phone number you can dial to have a cop on the scene in around 5-10 minutes. Im pretty sure the chances of just "happening" to see a cop in that time are pretty low, at least based on my experience in and around DC (where one MIGHT see a cop in 10-20 minutes of driving around the capital and RFK stadium).
Parent claimed you don't get pulled over for 5 over, but in fact you certainly can where I live.
Certainly you can, but it is very rare and there IS a viable defense for that if you can show your spedometer is 5mph off-- because certainly you ARE allowed to drive with that degree of error and AFAIK you cannot be ticketed for such an error.
Additionally, due to inaccuracies in speedometers and poor reaction times (e.g. to changing slopes of hills), it's impossible to drive at or under 60 without having your speedo sitting more like 53-55
What, is your reaction time like 10 seconds? You cant see the hills coming? Your car does not just abruptly jump up 5 mph on a downhill unless it is a very severe grade, and even then if youre engine braking / riding the brake you should be able to hold one or two under the limit very easily.
I do it all the time with and without cruise control, claiming its impossible is absurd.
I am in fact putting myself and those around me in more danger by driving at 60 if everyone around me is going 75 than by driving 75 with them.
Some states have laws allowing that. Some do not. Ultimately, being part of society means you agree that society makes the rules, rather than you deciding which rules feel right for you.
Your right there only job is to collect funds to fill government coffers that's why they are unmarked. They are not ticketing to punish they are ticketing to keep the government funded and that's wrong.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I just claimed that the "stealth" cars serve little purpose other than writing traffic tickets, and so outing them isn't going to somehow result in a rash of major crime.
Maybe you dont live in a place where causing gridlock (sitting in intersections on red), or red-light running is rampant. I do; every single time I pass the 15th and constitution intersection I see about 5 cars run the left-turn red light because they think its their turn.
Honestly, I think we need fleets of undercover cops, so that maybe we could curb some of the worst of the "road belongs to me" behavior. Ive even seen metro busses blocking intersections, I dont think youre aware of how bad it can be.
Not carrying proof of insurance is actually kind of a problem if you get into an accident. Do you really want to hear someone say "ill call you with my insurance details"?
Then show your car is inaccurate by that degree and get the ticket thrown out.
crimes that potentially would not have been committed if the car had been clearly visible.
That is true, however preventing traffic violations in a small area doesn't nessacerally mean reducing the overall rate of traffic violations or improving safety.
Whereas if someone gets caught they are hit with a fine and here in the UK (and from a quick check on wikipedia a number of other places too) they are are also hit with "points". If they do not know where they are being watched then the risk of being caught will hopefully serve to discourage them from repeating the offense whereever they are. IMO the points are a bigger deterrent than the fines because building up too many of them will end the driver up in court with likely loss of license.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
They certainly do stop ordinary motorists if something flags you to them (impaired driving, excessive speed, tax/insurance issues etc) but they're not there to "catch you out"...
That's really weird. In the US, if an unmarked police car tries to pull me over for any of those reasons, this only means one thing, and it means that it's a criminal trying to impersonate a cop.
You breaking the law in another way that the officer can see isn't an excuse.
better yet get the thing fixed and don't go over the speed limit?
My point still stands. It might be a pain in the ass, but a ticket issued under such circumstances is invalid and you can have it dismissed in court. My wording was less verbose than necessary to handle all the edge cases.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and judges don't count the opinion of a police officer higher than that of a defendant. Nope, that NEVER happens. </sarcasm>
I've gone to court over a traffic ticket, fought it and won, and STILL ended up paying court costs and fines that ended up being more than the original fine.
They should also be held liable when that police office gets killed or the suspect they are investigating commits a crime.
But only if the person who took the pictures was the murderer.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Incidentally, there's also a considerable difference between 220 km and 220 kph.
That's a mighty fine soapbox you've got there. I want to see you use it sometime where it matters:
"No, officer, you can't give me a ticket! I wasn't breaking any laws!"
(As folks seem to be fond of saying these days, good luck with that.)
Kid-proof tablet..
Do you really want to hear someone say "ill call you with my insurance details"
Around here that's what we do. All you need to do is give their rego number (and hopefully name/drivers license number) to your insurance company. It is an offense to drive a vehicle with no plates and you are required to carry your license. Anyway, if you had good insurance it wouldn't matter if the other person didn't. Just snap a photo of the accident scene (presuming they didn't do a runner) that shows the plate numbers and you're able to claim.
I drink to make other people interesting!
"If the police are being outed undercover then don't whine when crime occurs."
Can anyone really be that dense? No wonder he has to hide as an AC. If you are being burgled, don't whine about it. I did not out the police so that has nothing to do with my upset when a crime occurs. Plain traffic cars are in no way related to burglaries. etc. etc. etc. No point, he is obviously too stupid to work out how to tie his own shoe laces.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
My g/f turned to me on the way to bed last week and told me that she would do anything that I wanted. I asked her to paint the living room and for some reason she got upset and she never did paint the living room. Women!!!
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Indeed, one is a unit of distance and one is a unit of speed. To convert, you take the 220 km travel distance, and you divide it by the 1 hour that the poster claimed it took him to make this trip. 220 km / 1 hour = 220 kph.
That being said, I don't see how your comment relates to the post you replied to.
They certainly do stop ordinary motorists if something flags you to them (impaired driving, excessive speed, tax/insurance issues etc) but they're not there to "catch you out"...
That's really weird. In the US, if an unmarked police car tries to pull me over for any of those reasons, this only means one thing, and it means that it's a criminal trying to impersonate a cop.
That varies by state, but they absolutely can pull you over in many of them.
That's a mighty fine soapbox you've got there. I want to see you use it sometime where it matters:
"No, officer, you can't give me a ticket! I wasn't breaking any laws!"
(As folks seem to be fond of saying these days, good luck with that.)
Nice twisting of my argument. That's not what I said and you know it, but you don't have a valid argument to reply with so you've gone for something I didn't address.
If a cop is giving you an illegal ticket then you just take it at the time and then take it up in court. You don't argue with them.
If you're not doing anything to warrant the ticket in the first place you're unlikely to attract the ire of the cop in the first place, of course. If one of them does pull you over then you don't whine at them that "you can't give me a ticket" (is that how you say it? maybe it explains a lot), you just take a note of all the circumstances involved. The PC for being stopped for one thing.
Not a twist on any argument, just a jab at an ill-placed absolute statement that is obviously false.
You keep on with your bad self and keep fighting the good fight, or whatever the fuck it is that you're doing.
Kid-proof tablet..
police ARE government..
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
My uncle is a cop, and i have been instructed to NEVER stop for an unmarked car. About 6 years ago now there was a big problem with fake police pulling people over and robbing them. My uncle instructed me if I ever try and get stopped by an unmarked car I should drive directly to the station and worry about it when I get there. Under cover, or unmarked cars are the worst thing ever.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
First: small claims court is not the same as regular court.
Second: How many times have you been to court? I worked in a law office for nearly a decade. You know what lawyers call "court costs"? They call it "The Judges' Retirement Fund", mostly due to the fact that they're a revenue source for the district they're located in. Now, does that sound fair?
The fact is, traffic tickets don't have anything to do with public safety, and have everything to do with bringing in money. The last traffic ticket I got was for going 36MPH in a 35MPH zone. My speedometer said I was going 35MPH (a little under, actually), as did my GPS. Did the judge or cop care? Nope, all they cared about was the fact that tax revenue for the city was down 35% that year and that they wanted my money to help make up the difference. The judge even offered me a "deal": pay $300 (the ticket was $50) in "court costs" and they wouldn't put the ticket on my record. I declined the offer, and ended up paying $350 ($300 in court costs + $50 ticket). Does that sound legitimate to you?
I always wondered what would happen if someone on Slashdot got a girlfriend. I guess we know now.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If you dont get their details and are unable to find out who their provider is, at least around here it impacts your rates.
Not getting their details on the scene changes it from "their problem" to "your problem".
Frankly, I like police vehicles to be visible so that I can find them in the event of an emergency if I need help.
Drug dealers have the same desire. For different reasons.
It's not "undercover cops" its "unmarked police cars". Basically its for traffic offences, not moles in international terrorist conspiracies.
If the police are being outed undercover then don't whine when crime occurs.
[rant] If the police don't like it, they can stop abusing THE PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING UNMARKED CARS GRANTED THEM BY SOCIETY when going about their revenue raising^w^w traffic policing duties. [/rant]
I have seen too many examples of police (in marked and unmarked* cars) breaking road laws** to have any sympathy at all for them. If this spills over to other branches - tough; if they can't follow the same rules as the rest of us they should consider a career change (to either the food service or housekeeping industries).
*Been close enough to see the uniform.
**Talking on mobile phones while driving***, exceeding the speed limit without using lights or siren, tailgating (less than 2 car lengths) at freeway speeds...
***Yes, I know that they are magically exempt from this one in Victoria, but they haven't been sprinkled with enough pixie dust to make this safe.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
Yes, that's my point. People don't commit crimes in front of cops. And frankly, in my experience, if people are speeding and have a narrow run in with a cop, they tend to drive much more carefully for a significant time after the encounter, but that's anecdotal; not sure if anyone's done a study on it. Now you can claim that we should have all cops be undercover, wiretap everyone in the country, and put hidden video cameras everywhere, let every crime happen that's going to happen, and then throw all the criminals in jail. Or, you can have very visible cops, etc. and try to keep most of the crimes from happening in the first place. I'm merely saying that it's not immediately clear that one approach is superior. I personally would rather have less crime and more criminals in the wild then more crime and fewer criminals, but that's my personal preference. I believe that prevention is more important than punishment, though of course the threat of punishment is necessary for prevention.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be. I apologize in advance for the following Godwin, but were we supposed to applaud when the SS arrested people for being Jewish? When people with different skin colors got arrested for sitting in the wrong place? By no means am I trying to equate traffic violations with such heinous civil rights violations, but the examples serve to demonstrate that making cops more effective at "going after folks violating the law" can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the law in question is.
5-10 minutes does me little good if I'm getting attacked now, and not everyone in the world has a phone on them 100% of the time. It doesn't matter whether the odds of happening to see a cop if you need them are low. The fact is that they are a lot lower if the cops are unmarked. And frankly a 5% chance of having a cop around to help is better than nothing at all.
Regardless, I am done with this discussion, since I have nothing more of value to add. There will always be differences of opinion, and that's fine, but this has all been irrelevant to my initial point that these are unmarked cars, not undercover cops, and I never intended to debate the merits of speed limits or unmarked cars.
Fear the penguin.
The 5 mph window is allowing for reaction times, paying attention, and speedometer inaccuracies. If each can account for 1-2 mph, then to guarantee that you don't cross 60, you need to be at 53-55, which was what my point is. I'm not saying that it's not possible to drive 60 +/- 1; sure it is. I was saying that in order to guarantee that you were not "breaking the law" by "speeding" (i.e. going 1 mile over the limit), you'd have to drive impractically slow. And if it's a law that is going to be strictly enforced and that should be strictly enforced, it should not be difficult or impractical to abide by. I have no problem not stabbing someone with a knife while walking down the street; it's not exactly hard to avoid doing that. If you force people into a situation where they can't drive less than 60 ('cause it's dangerous) and they can't drive even a bit more than 60 ('cause it's illegal), it's very hard to not commit a crime.
As per my other comment to you, the fact that something is the rule doesn't mean that it's right, nor does it means that it's moral. If no one ever spoke up and said "I don't agree with this rule," we'd still be living in some sort of feudal monarchy with no rights whatsoever. (Note: what sort of society it would be is irrelevant; please do not respond to this saying that you disagree that it would be feudal/a monarchy/etc.)
Fear the penguin.
This all just goes back to the fact that if you wanted to curb that behavior, a fleet of very visible cop cars would be far more effective. Cops can only pull over 1 (ish) car at a time. The number of cars will always outnumber the number of cops, so if the behavior is really as rampant as you say, you will quickly saturate your number of undercover cop cars. If the unmarked cop car has pulled over one car, the other 99 cars that go by can do whatever they want. On the other hand, one marked cop car can force good behavior on all 100 of those cars. It's analogous to the case of a gunman and a crowd. If you have one guy with a gun and a 100 bystanders, no one will do anything, because even if the guy can only shoot one person (or 6 or whatever), no one wants to be that one person. Once the guy fires the shot (or 6 or whatever) though, one person's day is ruined but the other 99 can rush him without fear.
Fear the penguin.
If you think an unmarked police car's primary purpose is catching people "driving 5 mph over the speed limit" then you've been listening to too much reactionary "why don't they go after real criminals?!" and "don't they have anything better to do?!" arguments, usually heavily promoted by people who have been caught breaking the law for 'trivial' reasons like speeding.
I haven't
Unmarked cars *are* used for "better things" than catching speeding motorists (even ones doing a mere 5 over - no cop stops you for 5 over, especially not an unmarked unit,
They do in Victoria (Oz)
you also get a 10% leeway to account for speedometer inaccuracy
You don't in Victoria
so the only time that "5 over" would be even close to something you could be pulled for would be in a 30 mph zone) - they're used primarily in the investigation and containment of stolen cars and for major crimes involving motor vehicles such as drugs, burglaries, etc.
They certainly do stop ordinary motorists if something flags you to them (impaired driving, excessive speed, tax/insurance issues etc) but they're not there to "catch you out" - you make it sound like it's some trick to make you break the law when you think they're not looking.
Some police behaviour I've witnessed suggests otherwise
I know for a fact that Cheshire Police in the UK doesn't care if you know what unmarked cars they use - I have seen them personally show large, unobscured photographs of them with number plates showing clearly in public settings - because they're not designed to trick you, they're designed to be less visible than a panda car so they can tail suspect vehicles more easily, and your "5 over" driver is not such a motorist.
Your "5 over" driver IS such a motorist over here.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
I lived in an area where doing 100mph in a 60mph was being friendly to other drivers. Point is, it matters where you live! Thank god (or any other universe entity) for country living. As long as you give a damn of other drivers around, you will not get arrested around here (exact area not disclosed) the police will NOT come after you for doing 30KPH over the limit. Hell, I even did tata to the cops!
Tomorrow is another day...
I've been in two not-at-fault bingles (rear-ended while stopped at lights both times), and each time all I needed to give my insurance company was the rego of the other car and the driver's name. Conceded it made it easier having their full details, but I have never been asked who insures the other party.
A little helpful hint - if your insurer is good, and you get choice of repairer then you should make the claim through your insurer even if not at fault. It shouldn't have any effect on your premiums because the insurance companies will sort that out between themselves. If the other party has a no-choice policy and you let them claim it then you may wind up stuck with whatever (possibly crappy) repairer their insurance sends you to, as happened to a friend of mine recently with very poor results.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Because people who "think its their turn" will magically think it isn't if an unmarked police car is in the vicinity?
You clearly don't live in australia.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Amen brother. The police say that this facebook page is compromising police safety? How do you think people realized it was an unmarked police car? Because it identified itself when it pulled someone over for a bullshit traffic violation. If it's so urgent that the car's identity remain unknown, perhaps they shouldn't blow the cover over meaningless bullshit.
I've had two separate friends who were ticketed for going less than 5 km/h over the limit. I was in the car for one of them. In that case, it took about 10-20 seconds to pass the cop car, meaning there was a speed differential of maybe a couple km per hour. That's hardly leaving a margin for inaccuracies. His reasoning was essentially that it is illegal to pass a cop, as if police spedometers are international standard for velocity, free of inaccuracies.
These are the cops that give the rest of them a bad name.
And yes they do "trick you" with speed traps in areas where the speed limit makes no sense and is out of date. It can be just as dangerous to go significantly below the flow of traffic as it can be to go faster, but who would want to make policy changes that make more sense at the expense of a nice revenue stream. If traffic violations were about safety only then the revenue could just as easily go to a charity with no input into traffic enforcement. Of course we all know that would never happen, and any argument against that suggestion only serves to prove the point that it's the money that really matters.
Because the original post said the person had drive 220 km, not that they had driven at 220 km/h. Even British police will pull you over for doing twice the national speed limit - 70mph - regardless of how well you're driving.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Respectfully, I suggest you try reading it a little more carefully:
"The last time I took the wheel in the UK I made a 220 km journey, over mostly M roads, in an hour"
If the journey took an hour and the distance was 220km then speed (well, mean speed over the distance) is 220km (which as you say is just under twice the speed limit on the M-roads he mentioned).
Personally I think that's a load of bollocks - you can get away with around 80mph on the motorway (limit is 70) without pissing off the police here in the UK but 137mph? no chance at all - that far in excess of the limit puts at risk of immediate ban and charges of dangerous driving are likely at that point.
You are correct, I missed the "in an hour". And I agree: it's bollocks; no-one is going to let you do 140 mph on public roads in the UK.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
If you think an unmarked police car's primary purpose is catching people "driving 5 mph over the speed limit" then you've been listening to too much...
TFA is about Australia. In Australia (especially Victoria and NSW - can;t speak for other states) there is zero tolerance for speeding. 1km/h over the limit and you get a ticket. Google it, there are tons of stories about it, I've seen the tickets personally myself. A lot of the time the Highway Patrol (the cops dedicated purely to traffic infringements) use unmarked cars. They are mostly jerks, even regular cops hate them.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Speeding isn't a crime, it's a misdemeanour.
I doubt any of these are even undercover cars, they're just unmarked. If you want to get some pictures of an unmarked police car, just sit on the sidewalk and watch them pull out of the station. If you want to get pictures of an undercover police car, good fucking luck. I know an undercover cop personally and there is no fucking way you would make out them OR their car.
The point - and complaint - is that this sort of draconian speed enforcement has nothing to do with road safety.
Shouldn't be a "crime" in the first place. Your choice of tyres or maintenance of suspension, will have more of an impact on your stopping distance and maneuverability than 5km/h. Not to mention your speedometer can legally be up to 10% out.
Speeding fine brackets shouldn't even start until 10% over the posted limit
Because you shouldn't have to micro-manage your speed. It achieves nothing except:
a)training people to drive along spending 3/4 of their time looking out for speed limit changes and watching the dash, rather than watching the road; and
b) not to use their own judgement when choosing how fast to drive. This becomes important when the speed limit is, in fact, too fast ("I was under the limit, it must have been safe!").
Wow.
Even with the post fully explained you are still incapable of getting it.
Just wow.
If the OP stated that he went 220 km (Distance) in an hour (Time). Which by the way he did.
Then as the GP pointed out 220km / 1 hour = an average speed of 220kph.
Math. It works.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Police reaction to speeding in the UK and US is often quite different. The last time I took the wheel in the UK I made a 220 km journey, over mostly M roads, in an hour and got no tickets despite passing several marked police cars. I presume it's because I always stayed left except to pass, was diligent about signaling and generally being polite in my driving behavior aside from the speed.
In contrast, a co-worker of mine received a ticket for 2 mph over the limit last year in the US.
Are you sure it was police you passed and not Highways Agency traffic officers? Their vehicles are marked similarly, but the traffic officers are there to attend to accidents on the motorways, maintain traffic flow etc., and not to arrest people. If you passed the police whilst travelling at 137 mph (almost double the maximum speed limit in the UK), it is very unlikely that you'd be spared a trip to court.
The original poster said that they had driven 220 km in one hour. This means they must have averaged 220 km/h...
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Speeding isn't a crime, it's a misdemeanour.
Figure of speech is figure of speech.
Because you shouldn't have to micro-manage your speed. It achieves nothing except:
a)training people to drive along spending 3/4 of their time looking out for speed limit changes and watching the dash, rather than watching the road; and
b) not to use their own judgement when choosing how fast to drive. This becomes important when the speed limit is, in fact, too fast ("I was under the limit, it must have been safe!").
If you can't drive safely while observing the speed limit for the road then you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place. It's hardy "micro-managing" to drive at the speed limit - it's called "driving a car on a public road".
Posted limits also have nothing to do with your own judgement regarding the safe speed to drive. That's irrelevant - the road conditions and local traffic all need to be considered by the driver in question. The posted limit doesn't excuse you for having an at-fault accident when doing less than the sign says. Again, obeying the speed limit absolutely does not remove people's own judgement on what the safe speed it, except that it must be at or below the posted limit. You can drive more slowly as you wish.
I can drive perfectly safely while observing the speed limit. "Observing the speed limit" will mean +/- 5-10km/h depending on road design, geography, other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.
If you are going to try and argue that exceeding the posted limit by a single km/h has any meaningful impact on risk, then I'm just going to point out that makes you completely ineligible to have a discussion on the subject.
Having to spend most of the time watching the speedometer so you don't drift a few km/h over the limit is absolutely micro-managing. The correct and safe way to determine speed is to match it with surrounding traffic.
I never said they did. I said draconian enforcement of speed limits and a hyper-focus on speeding by police leads to a culture of "obeying the speed limit == safe" and roads full of people who spend most of their time with their eyes glued to the speedometer (since creeping a few km/h over could cost them a hundred and fifty bucks and a license point). I have observed this phenomenon infecting Australian drivers for twenty years as speed enforcement has become more and more strict. Unsurprisingly, the impact on the road toll has been minimal (to nonexistant) and wholly attributable to things like better roads and safer vehicles.
Maybe that is the case there but here I see the most unmarked police cars in the FHP (Florida Highway Patrol), and they always get people for traffic violations. One thing that California does right, in my opinion, is case law considers it a speed trap to intentionally use unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. The ruling from the bench is that the purpose of law enforcement is to deter crime, and you cannot do that if no one knows you are there.
If you want to do a really good tail on someone, you can't use an unmarked police car, either. They always buy fleets of cars with specific configurations. You can almost always tell when a car behind you is a police model (whether or not its a civilian you cannot always tell right away). But a smart criminal will see that someone, who looks like a cop car, is following him. I can understand giving detectives and high ranking officers unmarked cars as well. They don't generally do traffic enforcement or handle emergency calls. If you're doing traffic enforcement in an unmarked car, you might as well call it a driving tax, and make everyone pay it. Especially since our legal system has basically said for a traffic infraction you are guilty until proven innocent because the officer is more "trustworthy" than the accused.
If I were in the "fast lane" I would certainly speed up, and move out of the way. If that officer gave me a ticket, I would ask him for his car's unit number and would be at the courthouse that same day with my ticket in hand asking for a subpoena for his police car's video. In most states, a judge would frown upon an officer who endangered someone to issue a speeding ticket. California, and most other states, have a basic speed law providing you with some flexibility on speed limits for anything under 55mph. If you're going faster than that, you could still claim that you saw it was an unmarked officer, and that you thought he was responding to an emergency, and was therefore tailgating you, and you were trying to get out of his way as quickly and safely as possible in order to allow him to provide whatever emergency assistance he was going to offer.
An officer who has resorted to such tactics should have all of his previously issued citations dismissed and refunds granted, as necessary. I guarantee you an officer would not try such a stunt again, as he would likely become unemployed after that.
I can drive perfectly safely while observing the speed limit. "Observing the speed limit" will mean +/- 5-10km/h depending on road design, geography, other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.
If you are going to try and argue that exceeding the posted limit by a single km/h has any meaningful impact on risk, then I'm just going to point out that makes you completely ineligible to have a discussion on the subject.
I'm not making that argument. If the enforcement of speed is draconian, then driving under the limit is just sensible to avoid tickets. In that case, "observing the speed limit" does not mean "+/- 5 kmh". In that case you're simply courting trouble if the police are as draconian as you say. In that case, they are treating the limit as a hard limit, so even 1 over is outside the conditions set out for the road, whether "common sense" applies or not.
Personally I think that is overly draconian, and doesn't really contribute much to safety, other than being a deterrent for people speeding (I think the UK's system is far more sensible - 10% margin, with up to an extra 1,2 or 3 on top of that depending on the local force), but if you're going to argue that the line being exactly on there limit of the posted signs is any more "taxing" with "eyes glued to the speedometer" than having the limit be a few over that speed then you're just looking for an excuse.
If you can't keep your car safely under the limit without your eyes "glued to the speedo" then you're not fit to drive a car. Just pretend that the limit is 5 less than the posted limit and then resume your normal "+/- 5 kmh" as you say is your normal "observing the speed limit" and you'll be able to do it safely, right?
Its Australia dude. Nobody is going to go about shooting at unmarked cop cars here.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Are you sure it was police you passed and not Highways Agency traffic officers?
in my experience the traffic officers cars seem to have black and yellow checks whereas police have blue and yellow checks, as opposed to green and yellow checks for paramedic cars.
when coming up from behind the obilique angle makes it hard to tell the difference between the colours,
snake
no cop stops you for 5 over
Bullshit. I've been stopped for going 72 mph in a 70 zone. I didn't get a ticket, but I was pulled over and delayed. Of course, you most likely have not driven the two million miles I have driven. Amateur!!
Not getting their details on the scene changes it from "their problem" to "your problem".
;)
It "impacts your rates" if someone magically crashes into your car inside your locked garage while you lounge on the beach in Tahiti 2000 miles away.
As for an accident with you involved... You need their license plate number, and their name helps but doesn't strictly matter. Your own insurance company will do the rest, for the simple reason that they would much, much rather make the other guy pay than pay out themselves.
I live in New Jersey, so the traffic atmosphere might be a little different here. I have never seen someone get pulled over for going 10 miles over the limit. There's almost an unspoken rule that you can go 8-10 over without being pulled over. (This is talking about 45+ MPH areas, mind you.) As for keeping with traffic and going more than 10 over the limit to avoid being a road hazard, the only people I see get pulled over are trail blazing and not staying with the pack.
A traffic ticket here for 3 over the limit will get thrown out if you just show up to court. I assume 5 would as well, unless you were in some type of low speed school zone. They want their money, and they can't negotiate you from a high point ticket to a low/no point ticket with a more expensive fine if you aren't getting any points on your license to begin with.
I do agree that there is too much focus on making revenue from traffic infractions, especially with traffic cameras. However, here at least, I haven't seen any cops bothering with minor speeding infractions.
If you had bothered to read further, you would have noticed I already posted noting that I had, in fact, misread the original post. Makes your post rather superfluous, doesn't it? Or does attempting to belittle people make you feel better about yourself?
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
no cop stops you for 5 over
Bullshit. I've been stopped for going 72 mph in a 70 zone. I didn't get a ticket, but I was pulled over and delayed.
Of course, you most likely have not driven the two million miles I have driven. Amateur!!
Cool story bro.
When I was stationed in Yuma Arizona back in the late70s, I got pulled over for doing ... get this.. 56mph in a 55mph zone.. Since I was in the military, I was able to keep my California license and plates. When the cop walked up to the car, all mirror shades and swagger, and asked me "Do you know how fast you were going?" and I said "Yes, under 55mph".. The guy says "I clocked you at 56..." .. I realized if I called him an idiot, things would not go well for me... So I simply said, "I'll see you in court, Officer".. THEN he looked at the address on my license, which said Yuma, Arizona, and saw my military ID, and realized he WOULD see me in court, since I was not a California tourist who would just pay the fine and skip driving all the way back to Arizona for court. And yes, the judge chewed this cop out quite nicely in open court... Was a joy to behold....
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
The rhetorical purpose is safety, but like any meme worth its salt, the real reason is to get you to think one thing but make you behave for a completely different reason.
In this case, the meme allows them to behave as highway robbers. If they cared about safety they'd use marked cars in plain sight, which would save a lot more lives by slowing everyone down.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Most bipeds do not have the power to detain you, arrest you, or search your person or property. Here's your sign.....
Repeal Prohibition. Again. End a black market and the most oppressive police state in the world...multiple problems solved.
FTFY
It's called cops pulling you over for driving 2 miles over the speed limit, and speed limits frequently being set far lower than conditions allow. But you knew that already.
Any more Concerns?
You didn't realize that's a non sequitur to the point he was making, or did you just rush in to be a douche?
It's called cops pulling you over for driving 2 miles over the speed limit, and speed limits frequently being set far lower than conditions allow. But you knew that already.
Any more Concerns?
Lower than the conditions allow? Who are you to make that call? Are you an expert in traffic patterns, road surfaces, road layout and accident statistics? How very arrogant of you to assume that "you know best" purely because it inconveniences you to drive at the speed limit in the presence of a cop.
If you're 2 miles over and the cop is being anal then guess what, you were 2 miles over and he is within his rights to give you a ticket. If you live in a region where 10% leeway is the law then get it challenged in court, if not then tough luck - you know the rules and how strict they are, so if you're 2 over, suck it up like a grown up. The cops are not your parents who will give in to you whining that it's not fair that they are punishing you for breaking the rules.
Whatever the speed limit is set to, if you can't safely drive at or below it then you have no business holding a driving licence. Whining that it's too low is irrelevant.
Police reaction to speeding in the UK and US is often quite different. The last time I took the wheel in the UK I made a 220 km journey, over mostly M roads, in an hour and got no tickets despite passing several marked police cars.
What speed were you doing?
Anything over 85 will likely get you pulled over, based on your lack of observation of the marked car. Of course most people slow down to 70 when passing marked police cars, so you're forced to do so too.
Over the last 5 years I've felt the average speed on the motorway has dropped from about 80ish to 70ish, there's a lot of dangerous car drivers that are doing under 56mph (thus forcing lorries out into the middle lane), and you're getting dangerously high speed differences between people doing 70, and idiots doing 45.
Police cars are rare though, you probably saw highways agency vehicles, whose have limited powers to stop and direct traffic (During an RTA for example), but not pull you over for speeding or issue a ticket.
I know for a fact that Cheshire Police in the UK doesn't care if you know what unmarked cars they use - I have seen them personally show large, unobscured photographs of them with number plates showing clearly in public settings - because they're not designed to trick you, they're designed to be less visible than a panda car so they can tail suspect vehicles more easily, and your "5 over" driver is not such a motorist.
Cheshire police are the only force to have pulled me over for speeding, back in 1999. I'd joined the M56 heading towards wales, and pulled into a gap in the outside lane. BMW ahead went speding off at 100+, and the estate behind me was right up my tail. Sped up to get to past the middle lane lot, then pulled in. The estate went speeding off.
A few miles later it had dropped back and then pulled me over, with video of me at 87mph. They were very grumpy about losing the bmw, but let me off with a warning.
And the point being made, which you are ignoring, is that this sort of enforcement is not only pointless, it is actually counter-productive.
No, I am not trying to make excuses, or whinge about tickets - I haven't been fined for speeding for at least ten years, and even that was the first time for a few (then again I don't - and wouldn't - live in Victoria). My interest is in road safety, and I am criticising a system that is failing to aim for that objective, in the face of people like you who are insisting that my criticism is invalid because "that's the law".
Bullshit. I'd lay down a hundred bucks in an instant betting you couldn't keep your speed under an arbitrary limit over any meaningful period of time, in traffic, without frequent references to the speedometer.
The issue, which you are studiously ignoring, is that drivers should not have to frequently monitor their speed. Drivers should feel confident that they can match their speed to surrounding traffic without fear of punishment so they can concentrate on the far more important jobs of monitoring their vehicle, other vehicles, the road, pedestrians, and the like.
There are legitimate reasons to enforce speed limits, namely public safety and environmental protection, but that differs quite a bit from predatory speed traps. Those are just money rackets, and they often encourage behavior that makes the public less safe and results in worse fuel economy.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Some places have 'zero tolerance' for speeding, and the cops in those places will pull you over for 2 MPH. Now, you are correct in the fact that it's legally shaky, but you'd have to go to court, which would cost more than paying the ticket. Also, in many cases, the victims of this are people passing by, so fighting it would include the additional burden of traveling a decent distance.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Bullshit. I'd lay down a hundred bucks in an instant betting you couldn't keep your speed under an arbitrary limit over any meaningful period of time, in traffic, without frequent references to the speedometer.
That's not what I said. You're grasping at straws. Maybe your definition of "glued to the speedometer" is different to mine, but under normal road driving conditions I can maintain a steady speed with occasional glances at the speedo *and* manage to stay under any limit I have arbitrary set (often I pick the speed limit or a few under, for no particular reason). Your assertion that hard limits being enforced caused drivers to "glue their eyes" to the speedo (ie, check it obsessively). My assertion is that if you can't stay under the limit (whatever limit that may be, 30, 35, 38, 70, 85 etc) without doing that then you're unfit to drive a car.
You're looking for an excuse to say "the cops should not ticket me for being over the speed limit if it's only by a small amount, even though I know it's within their remit to ticket me for breaking the limit."
i'm sure that kind of information circulated in euh 'relevant circles' long before it got mainstream there
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
i was too fast again with the submit, who checks the fact that they're all actual undercover cars or people ?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
They would have no such desire if sane drug laws (legalize them and treat side effects as a health issue, which they are) were the rule of the day.
Fine, replace "drug dealers" with "bank robbers"
Actually, it does have something to do with the ticket. This is how things are by design in order to make sure the revenue stream isn't interrupted. If invalid tickets were reasonable to challenge, then they couldn't hand out nearly as many invalid tickets.
Also, it strikes me as quite peculiar how much you are defending a clearly predatory system just because it's the law. No public good is served by this.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What is it they govern? Cops enforce the law they don't create it, sure they are instituted and funded by government, but that doesn't make them the government. Do people really believe every cop agrees with every law they are asked to enforce?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes it is. Where you decide to place your arbitrary line is irrelevant.
And your assertion is rubbish. Primarily because, as I've stated numerous times, drivers shouldn't _need_ to spend any meaningful amount of their concentration budget monitoring speed. If there really is any danger to creeping a few km/h over the limit, then the speed limit on the road should be lower to start with.
I'm not looking for an excuse, that's _exactly_ what I'm saying because it's a perfectly sound argument. Speeding infringements shouldn't even be punishable until they hit more than 10% over and they most certainly should not be hyper-focused on low-scale, low-risk [high-payback] infringement like they are in Australia (and particularly Victoria). It's a waste of resources and a counter-productive safety strategy.
Your choice of car and tyres, or your vehicle's maintenance, have more of an impact on safety than whether you're doing 100 or 105km/h. This is before even getting to driver attributes like reaction time, concentration and experience.
Your assertion is that the law is the law and tough titties (an incredibly weak argument to start with). My assertion is that road safety should be the focus and that draconian speed enforcement undermines that principle.
I've spent enough time in the UK to probably have covered 40,000-odd km there, all over the country. I know what the roads and the policing attitudes are like, so I know where you're coming from. Australia - particularly Victoria - is a very different culture. Mobile speed traps are rife, deliberately placed to be obscured and frequently located in areas where unintentional (and low-risk) speeding is easy (bottom of hills, roads where limits should be higher, inactive construction zones, etc). Speeding fines are routinely given out for exceeding the limit by single-digit amounts in 100-110km/h zones (which is absurd on its face). As I have said, this has bred an environment where drivers are constantly monitoring their speed and neglecting the far greater responsibility of monitoring everything happening around them.
Your entitled to your opinion, I myself have lived in Melbourne for 50yrs. In 1969 our road toll was over 1000/yr, now with well over 10X the number of cars the toll hovers around 300-400/yr. The state government and the cops have put in a 30yr effort to keep the roads safe; speed cameras, booze buses, seat belts, unmarked cars, we invented the "shock" road saftey ads. The state is recognized internationally for its experiences and our methods have been widely copied by others. I think the occasional fine for a trivial infraction every now and then is a small price to pay for such a spectacular improvement, think of it as "insurance".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I blame it on blueshift...
if doing that cost me zero time, effort, and money then i wouldn't have a problem.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Your speedometer can legally overstate your speed by 10%, so if your speedometer says 110km/h then your actual speed can be between 99 and 110 legally. However, if your actual speed is higher than what the speedometer says then your car (in Australia) is not roadworthy, so car manufacturer's always set the speedometers to say you're going faster than you actually are. (The Australian Design Regulations also specify that the speedometer must be accurate up to 40km/h)
A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
I think by about the 15th time people get a ticket for running the same light at 15th and constitution, the behavior will be curbed. All you accomplish by using visible cop cars is causing people to desist while the cop is around.
We have tons of cop cars running around, its just not effective at permenantly stopping the behavior. A serious crackdown would either A) solve the problem or B) simultaneously fund the police and take the bad drivers off the road. Honestly? I really dont care which way it goes.
For the record Id also be cool with it if the second time a metrobus was caught blocking an intersection if the driver were immediately canned and had their private and commercial license revoked, but thats probably dreaming.
Now you can claim that we should have all cops be undercover, wiretap everyone in the country, and put hidden video cameras everywhere, let every crime happen that's going to happen, and then throw all the criminals in jail.
Thats a strawman, and you know it. Undercover cops violate NO constitutional nor statutory protections that I am aware of, since they are in a public space as you are. Wiretaps, video, etc are all entirely different animals. It may suprise you to know that my worldview is not black and white, but Im certainly not going to handcuff the ability of the cops to actually catch people simply because I might happen to get caught breaking the law.
See, I dont MIND getting ticketed for going 5 over the limit if it meant that that behavior were actually curbed, because then we could actually do something about bad speed limits knowing that when it says "70mph", people will actually have to follow that. What we have now is utter chaos; you can be arbitrarily ticketed depending on flow of traffic and how pissed off a cop is, which is generally a terrible system for everyone-- and its all because the laws are fuzzy because noone actually follows them. My level of sympathy someone who gets ticketed for speeding? Pretty low.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be. I apologize in advance for the following Godwin, but were we supposed to applaud when the SS arrested people for being Jewish?
I have yet to hear any reason why speed limits are in need of non-violent protest. Is there some human right to speed that Im unaware of here? Or some other moral issue at stake?
Or is this just a case of "I dont like the particular limits society has set, so Im going to ignore them"?
The fact is that they are a lot lower if the cops are unmarked.
Perhaps cop helicopters should be marked with hot pink, so you can see them too in an emergency. Never mind how remote the odds of that happening are, right?
Thats ridiculous, and you know it is. The cop will likely see you before you see them, assuming one nearby hasnt already been radio'd from 911. If you are neglecting to dial 911 because you assume you can just flag a cop down, youre doing everyone in the emergency a huge injustice and theres a good chance you could get hit with negligence. We have a 911 system for a reason, and if its a true emergency the response time will be like 2-4 minutes.
Level of caring is minimal. Im conservative, so I dont want the government doing a lot, but I would prefer those things that it DOES do (law enforcement) are actually effective.
If they can fund themselves catching people breaking the law, honestly more power to them.
Given they "think its their turn" they are going to get a ticket and hence "the message" from a marked police car as well.
Sorry.
Did not know that you were fully aware of how big of an idiot you were.
Carry on.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Since they have lights, cameras, radios, and friends with tools that can turn $1000 Z rated tires into litter... possibly more effectively then you'd wan't to risk...
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
I will often give people behind me a brake check too.
However if the car behind you is a police car, they can decide that your sudden braking without cause was in fact reckless driving.
You might win that insurance claim, but you can still lose your licence in the process.
When one is an arrogant self-absorbed prick who thinks impeeding traffic is their personally-granted-god-given right, they cause other arrogant self-absorbed pricks to follow too close, pass improperly or try and "make up time" - so collectively all such pricks create the situation for all motorists...
Unlike the 60's (when the speed limits were set) - your car won't just explode when you cross 70mph.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
"Undercover cop?" I fucking HATE euphemisms. Call a spade a spade: It's secret police. If we had no victimless crimes we'd have no need for secret police.
But you can't have a police state without them, can you?
Free Martian Whores!
You didn't read the part about it being in Victoria, Australia?
I did. That is why I said "fast lane" instead of "left lane." I realize that some people forget to drive on the right side of the road. I do not live in Victoria, Australia. Most Slashdotters do not. I was giving an example of what I would do in the situation stated by the GP, and how the laws I am familiar with would support and, in theory, exonerate me. The second paragraph was me stating that, in the civilized world, a decent judge would punish a police officer for causing dangerous situations, regardless of law.
If you find a single biped not abusing sweeping privileges, please check for a pulse...
My wife gave me Sweeping Privileges, but I declined.
As he clearly said "a single biped", you do not qualify.