Judge Says You Can Warn Others About Speed Traps

cartechboy writes "Speeding is against the law, and yes, even going 5 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law. But everyone does it, right? What about when you see a cop? Some cops are ticketing people for notifying fellow motorists about speed traps. In Florida, Ryan Kintner simply flashed his high-beams to warning oncoming cars that there was a cop ahead. He was given a ticket for doing so. He went to court to fight the ticket, and a judge ruled that flashing lights are the equivalent of free speech, thus he had every right to flash his lights to warn oncoming cars."

Comments

Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[sandytaru]

I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[lgftsa]

The Australian road rules sidesteps the "warning" issue:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/l...

  AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 218
Using headlights on high-beam
218 Using headlights on high-beam

        (1) The driver of a vehicle must not use the vehicleâ(TM)s headlights on high-beam, or allow the vehicleâ(TM)s headlights to be used on high-beam, if the driver is driving:

                (a) less than 200 metres behind a vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver, or

                (b) less than 200 metres from an oncoming vehicle.

                Penalty: Offence provision.

                Note: "High-beam" and "oncoming vehicle" are defined in the dictionary.

        (2) However, if the driver is overtaking a vehicle, the driver may briefly switch the headlights from low-beam to high-beam immediately before the driver begins to overtake the vehicle.

                Note: "Low-beam" and "overtake" are defined in the dictionary.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[lgftsa]

Whoops, that was from the repealed/superseded regulations list. It's still illegal in Queensland and NSW, though. Here's the _current_ Qld rules:

A driver must not switch headlights to high beam if another vehicle is closer than 200m in front of the driver's vehicle.

A driver may flash the headlights briefly before overtaking another vehicle.

Drivers must ensure that they do not dazzle other road users.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[tripleevenfall]

I don't see how this is different from warning people not to break other laws.

If I say to someone who is under investigation by law enforcement for trafficking narcotics "Hey, you shouldn't do that, you might get in trouble", am I committing a crime?

If my wife is driving and we are, unbeknownst to me, approaching a speed trap and I warn her to slow down, am I committing a crime?

If they pull me over for this, what do they charge me with?

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So don't use your high-beams, just quickly turn the low beams on and off.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[The_Wilschon]

Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law. If people know about an upcoming speed trap, then they'll slow down to the speed limit. If they don't know about the speed trap, then they'll continue to endanger those around them by driving too fast. </delightfully naive> Of course, we all know that what the police really want is ticket revenue. The more law breakers there are, the more revenue they get, and hence they will try to stop people from warning others to obey the law. This system is rather broken.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[bobbied]

I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.

Careful there cowboy, keep your hat and boots on. This judge is only a district court judge and his authority only applies to his district (Eastern Missouri mostly). It is a good federal prescient and I'm sure his opinion would be cited in the defense of anybody who was being charged with flashing their lights, but it's not a settled matter. Other districts are certainly entitled to their own opinions and it's quite likely some judge will disagree, at which point we move up the chain.

So, if you are in the Eastern Missouri District, flash away, the courts are on your side. Outside of this, tread carefully and be ready to pay the legal fees required to push it up to your district.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Anonymous Coward]

OT, but worth it. Slashdot has announced that it will roll out beta this month and that the classic interface will only be available for "a number of months."

Please, Please, Please don't do this!

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Chris Mattern]

Drivers must ensure that they do not dazzle other road users.

You mean I can't use my amazing dance moves?

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Deadstick]

It is a good federal prescient

If the oncoming drivers were prescient, they wouldn't need the warning.

Re: Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Anonymous Coward]

the reason the cops will not be pleased, is because of the "totally not really a thing(tm)" ticket quotas they get slapped with when the local municipal govt overspends on its budget, like it always does.

the city of course asserts that no such ticket quotas happen, and that they are an urban legend, however, my dad was of the police bacon variety for 25 years, and speaks with authority that yes, ticket quotas are real, and that there are punishments for not meeting them.

if the goal of the policeman is to basically do a shakedown on people in the name of public safety, (when in reality, the posted speed limits have shit little to do with modern highway safety, and have even been shown to be a safety HAZARD when followed in many areas-- making the "safe" speed the same as that of the rest of the flow of traffic, not what is posted), then of course they will be upset when motorists are allowed to warn of said shakedowns.

it's simple.

city says "write this many tickets, or suffer consequences" (then lies about it to the public)

cop has strong incentive to write as many tickets as possible.

city has highway speed limits posted dating from the 1950s and 1960s, intended for 2 lane highways being enforced on multi-lane metro traffic arteries, and does not want to update them because they are lucrative.

cops now have motorists warning each other about the shakedowns going on, and will be more likely to fail at meeting the "mythical" ticket quotas.

of course, the cops have the "my word against yours" thing going on with city officials, and cant prove that they get defacto enforced penalties for not meeting the "supposed" quotas, and besides, even if treated seriously, who is going to investigate and rule on the matter? both parties that would normally perform that service have outstanding interest in the matter.

so, caught in that nasty legal limbo, with a "so totally not really a requirement, honest!" requirement that now may not be met, you can bet that local city cops with traffic radar guns are going to be be snitty about this.

from the sounds of it, this was not a municipal judge that decided this case.

that's the difference here.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[gbjbaanb]

Way back in the day, The RAC (breakdown rescue club) used to have uniformed drivers who were famous for saluting motorists - the reason they did so was not to be polite, but to warn them of upcoming speed traps - if they didn't salute, you slowed down. Of course, this didn't count as warning the motorist as the RAC man hadn't done anything... literally.

I guess the point about trying to catch speeding drivers is that these are the ones who will speed up after they've gone past the trap and continue to be dangerous - best to catch them and take note of who they are so they can be banned after they've been caught enough times.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Chris Mattern]

Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law. If people know about an upcoming speed trap, then they'll slow down to the speed limit.

Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[fahrbot-bot]

Couldn't this guy have avoided the whole lawsuit ...

Actually, he could have easily avoided this lawsuit by not filing it. The charges where dropped by the city so it would have died there had he not filed suit in federal court.

But now this sets a precedent that may be referenced in other cases. Whether it helps is another matter, of course.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[fahrbot-bot]

No, it is not "Free Speech". It is criminal informant behavior.

Apparently, you're incorrect. I just read somewhere that a Judge ruled it Free Speech. :-)

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Charliemopps]

In the US our constitution usually trumps all other law. Look to the old "Jim Crowe" laws we used to have. They were basically like this, rules that at first appearence appeared to be meant to do one thing but what they actually did was infringe on constiutional rights. They were all struck down eventually.

So a cop could ticket you here for unlawful use of your lights, but the very fact that the police had setup a speed trap would make flashing them legal, because you were no longer using the lights to illuminate the highway but instead making a statement and invoking your right to free speech. In our country "Free speech" is upheld as the ultimate right... not to be infringed upon accept in very dire situations. For example the "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario. The police would have to prove that the flashing of your lights posed a significant hazard to the public to get the ticket to stick.

Lastly I'd like to point out that all of this is somewhat irrelevant. The police can badger you into submission by simply ticketing you for this every time, and then taking it to court every time. Though it may get struck down, the legal battle would cost you time and money.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[JLennox]

Traffic tickets need to cite what law was broken. Officers can't write tickets for random activities and then let a judge decide later.

In this case it was "[a] state law that prohibits motorists from flashing after-market emergency lights, even though it's not clear that the lights Kintner used were after-market" which is clearly bullshit. It does not align with what the person did at all. I am impressed that the officer knew local code well enough to cite that specifically on the ticket.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[sconeu]

I just looked at the beta for the very first time... Are they serious?

MY EYES!!!! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!!!!!

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[dcollins117]

Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law.

If the goal is to increase public safety, then yes, police should want people to drive the speed limit and reward the good citizens that warn other drivers of a speed trap. However, if the real goal is revenue generation, then the police would be upset by this behavior.

Please note that this article is about police issuing tickets to motorists who warn oncoming cars about speed traps. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[swb]

I've been told by a police officer who I know personally that much of the value behind speeding stops isn't speed enforcement or even impacting speeding generally, it's the chance to "interview" the motorist, look around at what's visible in their car, run their ID through the computer. Basically look to see if there's anything they can possibly use against you for an arrest of any kind.

It's kind of like running a roadblock.

If speed traps were about safety, the locations of speed traps would be places statistically correlated with high levels of accidents, especially those related to speeding. Instead, speed traps end up in places where it's easy to speed, such as at the end of long downhill sections or wide-open areas with good road conditions.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[SleazyRidr]

Changes in speed are more dangerous than a consistently high speed. Having everyone slam on their brakes when they go past a cop creates a huge hazard, not to mention fucking with guys like me who are just trying to drive at the limit to get to work on time.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[CanHasDIY]

Flashing your lights at someone is more like telling someone: "the cops are outside, flush the drugs down the toilet now!"

No.

It's directly analogous to saying, "Up ahead, there is a reason you should slow down."

Speed traps aren't the only reason people flash lights, you know. Accidents around blind corners, for example.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Entropius]

The day that fines for trafficking narcotics become an important revenue stream for the government, then, yes, you will be committing a crime.

The reason there is so much legal/ethical awkwardness surrounding speed traps is that they are a fundamentally different sort of law enforcement than enforcing laws against, say, burglary or assault.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[king neckbeard]

The war on drugs is an enormous revenue stream for the government, used in combination with civil forfeiture.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I agree with you completely.
What the hell are they thinking with the huge images wasting screen space, then forcing a link to finish reading the summary.
This will spell the end of /. and you can quote me on that.

How about you just add the features people have been asking for for years, and leave the rest alone? The ability to edit a comment. (Briefly) unicode. That is about it.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Dodgy G33za]

Personally I can't trust a police officer, full stop. The people I know who are coppers (extended family) are arrogant fucks who think they know better than everyone else. In my personal interactions with the police they have harassed rather than helped me, even when I have been the victim of a crime. And no, I have never been in prison or convicted of any crime.

The police are there to protect the rich, not to uniformly apply clear regulations for the protection of all.

On topic, the reason most of us flash other road users when we see speed traps is that we recognise them as unjust. I would say the majority of people break the law every time they get in the car, because the speed limits are constantly changing and our focus is elsewhere.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[cayenne8]

For example, warning others that the guy walking down the street in the rain is a police officer posing as one of the dozens of people who pass by an hour as a walking wire (i.e. there's always 8 or 10 people in this 10 meter stretch; 1 or 2 of them is an undercover cop, and they're using listening devices to pick up the narcotics sale going on at an outside dining table) should be a crime. Why? Direct interference with a covert operation.

The thing here is, that the general public is under NO obligation at all to make the police's job easier to perform. In fact, often it is not in the general publics best interest to force them to make the policeman's job easier. Rights can easily get stomped on that way by law enforcement.

We've seen how cameras and filming the police have helped people, and certainly did not make the cops job easier. If you made it against the law to photograph and video cops doing their jobs, it would allow them to get away with things they shouldn't.

But I digress...the point is, we as the general public are under no directive nor obligation to make the policeman's duties any easier for them.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[cayenne8]

I use this app Trapster .

It also helps you to know where those nasty breathalizer traps are too....so you can take a 'safer' back route home.

;)

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[bobbied]

Where I applaud your thoughts on HOA's....

HOA's actually have precedent in common law and have generally been upheld as legal. The Deed Restrictions that create them being legally binding. Taking them to court will only result in you loosing. All you can do is get the law changed.

Personally, (and yes this is totally off topic) I think HOA's and the deed restrictions that create them should be required by law to be regularly renewed or they cease to exist. Renewals should be though a majority vote of lot owners and should take place every decade or so. Failing renewal, dissolves the HOA and renders the recorded deed restrictions unenforceable from that point on.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Areyoukiddingme]

I got that banner today too. Suddenly all the posts about that shit-ass site revision mean something to me. I never had the problem other people had about getting shunted to the revised version involuntarily. I saw it once. It sucked ass. I told it to show me the readable version, and it has ever since.

Dice is in for a shock in the hit counter when they disable the readable version of the site.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[darkwing_bmf]

Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.

Well, the real answer would be speeding cameras everywhere instead of random checks. It would be more fair to everyone and reduce speed more consistently than random checks. But guess what? Those are not popular.

Right now driving is a game. A game with screwed up rules like: It's okay to drive the speed you feel safe. Unless there is a cop trying to enforce some arbitrary limit. Then you must drive the arbitrary limit. You are less likely to see a cop during rush hour because they don't want to slow down traffic. You are more likely to see the cop when the lanes have fewer people and are therefore safer for higher speeds. It's a crazy system we have.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Mr D from 63]

You could even says its for the safety of the oncoming drivers.... "hey, people may brake unexpectedly ahead, so be ready."

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[danomac]

Speed traps, OK. Enabling drunk driving by posting traps? I'm not so sure I agree with that one.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Deadstick]

the classic interface will only be available for "a number of months."

Show of hands. All in favor of Avogadro's Number...

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[zugmeister]

Think of it not as "enabling drunk driving" but more as helping enable people's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Many tools can be misused (hammer, car, chef's knife) and I think your takeaway regarding that particular tool is telling. As a non-drinker I am disgusted by the idea I can be stopped for no reason so some cop can stick his head in my car and ask me questions while looking for anything "suspicious".

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[PopeRatzo]

It has nothing to do with traffic laws. Municipalities use speed traps as revenue grabs, nothing more.

There's a transportation engineer, I think at the University of Missouri at Rolla, who did a study showing that speed traps (and traffic cameras, I believe) do not enhance safety.

I know here in Chicago, it's pretty blatant. When you're talking about a $375 fine for doing a rolling stop at a stop sign, or a $100 parking ticket, it doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement or public safety. It's all about the revenue.

And, by the way, such laws and enforcement methods have a disproportionate impact on lower-income drivers. As with most laws in the US, it's all about redistributing wealth upward.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[rk]

That might have been true in the "peace officer" era, where the goal was the peaceful and safe continuation of society, where the police were partnered with their community to keep it safe. But it is not true in the "law enforcement" era, where the goal is not to keep the peace, but to catch you doing wrong to extract revenue. This is why police and the communities they operate in start to view each other in an adversarial role, to the point where some police forces are almost indistinguishable from a paramilitary force.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Zargg]

Where I live, not sure how common this is though, the police themselves have to announce, in advance, when and where a DUI checkpoint will be taking place.

Re: Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[Damarkus13]

Don't I also need to know that the other person is breaking the law? I don't have a radar system in my car, how an I to know if they are speeding?

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[sjames]

If you do that, someone might dance back. Then it's on.

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[cayenne8]

But pulling EVERYONE over without reasonable cause or suspicion to 'test' them for sobriety should not be something that can be done. That really needs to be taken back to court under 4th amendment charges.

If someone is driving badly, weaving, etc...sure, pull them over, but checkpoints are dragnets which should not be allowed.

FIRE!

[Thud457]

I bet Waze is relieved that their business model is safe.

Re:FIRE!

[CanHasDIY]

Until, of course, people start speeding like mad (because given half a chance, who wouldn't want to drive way faster than allowed, given that most roads in the U.S. seem built for sessions of NASCAR re-enactment), people crash, other people get hurt, and they/their families start wondering why on Earth there's nobody and nothing (since people hate speed trap cameras even more than speed trapping actual cops) checking to make sure people are actually going the speed limit (or within some socially accepted limit above that, as is more common).

Reductio ad absurdum != evidence.

Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.

By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."

Which is kinda stupid in itself.

Think they'll listen?

[gstoddart]

It seems like the police periodically 'forget' or ignore things they have been told are illegal, but which they'd prefer to keep doing.

Because they seem to periodically act as if they're legally allowed to delete the contents of your cell phone when you record them doing something illegal.

And, really, if they can overtly ticket you for warning of their speed trap, they'll just find something else to charge you with.

And people wonder why trust for the police is dwindling.

Extrajudicial punishment.

[Hatta]

This ruling won't stop cops from ticketing you, forcing you to leave work to appear in court, and paying the court costs after the ticket is dismissed. Cops can and do write invalid tickets simply to be dicks, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Our justice system needs to ensure that the victim of a false accusation of a crime is made whole again.

Re:Extrajudicial punishment.

[interkin3tic]

I'd like to see the effects of a national law saying money collected from traffic tickets like this don't go to the city or the police department. Have it go towards paying down the national debt instead. Also, number of tickets issued isn't a metric by which police officer performance can be judged.

Cities deciding to cut taxes but not spending, then trying to make up for it by writing tickets all over is a politician's solution. And a police union's solution I suppose. Raise taxes normally and/or cut your spending, cities. Hire a few IRS auditors, not a bunch more police officers with expensive pensions. Or do that second part if you must but have them on the streets looking for violent crimes. If your voters scream bloody murder when you're raising rather than cutting $5 from their taxes a year, educate them on how stupid they are. Obviously I haven't done any research on this subject, but I'd bet a parking ticket it will work out better in the long run.

A sane ruling...

[3vi1]

A sane ruling on the matter...
and in Florida...

[Update;} I'm back from the window, but I didn't see neither a lake of fire *nor* four horsemen. :\

Even better, use apps like Waze

[SuperKendall]

I use Waze all the time (though looking for a replacement since it's been bought by Google). But the idea of community driven police/road hazard warnings is really the next step in making life better for motorists. Then I'm not warning a handful of people, I'm warning everyone for the next fifteen minutes that cares to know...

Police always say they put up speed traps to slow people down so they should be fine with others being warned.

warning of danger

[Anonymous Coward]

Speedtraps can pose a substantial danger, especially at high speeds (folks slam breaks, cops pull into the left lane from a standstill, or like they like to do it in Mass, back up on the emergency lane to get back into the trap). That's why they are made illegal in some states. And if there's a hazard down the road, you bet I should have a right to warn and be warned about it!

Re: warning of danger

[Ichijo]

Well, the Autobahn isn't exactly a bloodbath.

In Québec / canada

[fluffythdestroy]

It happened too right here and the judge said something different but it was accepted. The guy receives a ticket for speeding. So he accepts it and goes away. While going away he flashes his headlights to say theres a cop and that same cop see's him flashing his headlights. He receives a ticket. In front of the judge the person tells him that a police officer is there for the security of the people (which is part of their main job by the way )and not give tickets for cash. So for helping a fellow officer, he was helping an officer doing so. The judge accepted in favor of the citizen because of what the person said made a lot of sense. Helping an officer is not illegal and by doing so his ticket was invalid.

Re:In Québec / canada

[dryeo]

In BC the cops want people to know where the speed traps are, so phone the radio stations and tell them.
Speed traps are supposed to be about slowing people down.

Slashdot Beta: just say no

[sl4shd0rk]

dear god what's happening to the slashdot UI???

Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no

[dknj]

I thought I was the only one, this interface is horrible. Once classic slashdot is disabled, I'm gone from this site.

Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no

[g0bshiTe]

I flashed my lights at you to warn you of the impending change.

Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no

[game kid]

The funny part is that (after apparent months of bait-and-switch tests) they finally give that beta notice the day after nbcnews.com switches (without notice) to their mobile-frien^Wdesktop-hostile layout, with predictable and proper user response. I personally had to delete any trace of nbcnews from my RSSes to keep my sanity.

Desktop-hostile layouts* are bad, and not listening to users who simply do not want them, like me, is really bad.

Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no

[richlv]

i opened it (not pulled in it yet) and went ZOMGWTFNOWAY.
i'm not saying i will never come back after that one is implemented, but i surely will not be pleased.
they could have just had an attempt at fixing unicode...

Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no

[AbRASiON]

I haven't been forced to it yet but I checked it out a couple of times and it was horrendous.
Considering I just got told this:

"MOVINâ(TM) ON UP. You are on Slashdot Classic. We are starting to move into new digs in February by automatically redirecting greater numbers of you. The new site is a work in progress so Classic Slashdot will be available from the footer for several more months. As we migrate our audience, we want to hear from you to make sure that the redesigned page has all the features you expect. Find out more."

I'm guessing classic is getting the ass eventually?
So, where should I go for the right kind of news since I won't be continuing here, any suggestions? - I particularly like the older posters here with some incredible tales of technology, systems and workplaces from eras long since lost.
Replies suggesting reddit will be rightfully ignored.

Re:true

[tripleevenfall]

Communism has always resulted in expansion of freedom and in no cases resembled a police state.

Bet the kids in my neighborhood are happy!

[Petron]

A summer or two ago I saw a kid holding a sign that said "Speed trap ahead!". Over the next hill was a cop, mostly hidden by some bushes. The next stop light had another kid with a sign: "Speed Trap tips" and had a jar full of cash. Good show kids, good show...

Re:Free Speech HA!

[bobbied]

Mouth off to a cop and see how precious your fucking rights are in Amerikkka. Fags.

Mouthing off to a cop is pretty STUPID because there is *never* an upside to it. At best it is neutral if the cop decides to ignore you, but all other outcomes go down hill from there. It's best to just be respectful, stay calm and do what they tell you. You don't have to answer any questions or consent to any searches (and I suggest you not do either), but there is absolutely no sense in mouthing off.

Conspiracy to speed

[Etherwalk]

I don't see how this is different from warning people not to break other laws.

The difference is in this case you are warning people that they will get caught for breaking a law, and they will get caught in about a minute if they don't stop--as opposed to a more general "you shouldn't deal drugs because EVENTUALLY someone will catch you." Philosophically, it's like telling a drug dealer "hide your stash because a cop is coming."

The only difference is that this is a more widespread behavior, so people are generally more okay with it. It's still basically conspiracy (in this case, conspiracy to break the speed limit), and it carries jailtime if they want to pursue it. (The judge here may have bought the free speech argument--more likely, he didn't want to risk getting overturned on appeal. Either way, it doesn't mean every judge will.)

Fine x Probability of Being Caught = Incentive

[Etherwalk]

Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law. If people know about an upcoming speed trap, then they'll slow down to the speed limit. If they don't know about the speed trap, then they'll continue to endanger those around them by driving too fast. </delightfully naive>

Of course, we all know that what the police really want is ticket revenue. The more law breakers there are, the more revenue they get, and hence they will try to stop people from warning others to obey the law. This system is rather broken.

You assume that the justice system is calibrated incorrectly. Ideally, the penalty for speeding is designed to disincentivize the behavior and is multiplied to make up for the discount from the low probability of getting caught. A 10% chance of a $200 ticket, for example, or a 5% chance of a $400 ticket. If you warn people where speed traps are, you change the chance of getting caught, which means the fine is no longer as effective a deterrent.

This was actually a big problem with red light cameras--they made more people get caught, which made the expected penalty MUCH higher than it should have been.

Failure to Pay Toll

[Inev]

If my wife is driving and we are, unbeknownst to me, approaching a speed trap and I warn her to slow down, am I committing a crime?

If they pull me over for this, what do they charge me with?

Failure to Pay Toll

Vive la difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

...The difference is in this case you are warning people that they will get caught for breaking a law, and they will get caught in about a minute if they don't stop--as opposed to a more general "you shouldn't deal drugs because EVENTUALLY someone will catch you."

So ... if I see someone starting a fight in a bar, and I try and cool it down by shouting to him "Don't be an idiot! There's a cop outside in the street!" .... I should be done for... what, exactly?

Re:Vive la difference!

[NFN_NLN]

So ... if I see someone starting a fight in a bar, and I try and cool it down by shouting to him "Don't be an idiot! There's a cop outside in the street!" .... I should be done for... what, exactly?

... ruining other patrons entertainment value.

Re:Vive la difference!

[cayenne8]

Well, apps like Trapster, which allow you to report speed traps for other motorists using the app are legal, why isn't flashing your lights?

And, IF the point of a speed trap, is to slow down traffic, then flashing my lights does that nicely.

Or, am I maybe wrong here, that the point of a speed trap is nothing more than revenue collection..?

Perhaps we need to change the motto on the police cars to " To Collect and Serve.

Re:Vive la difference!

[Whumpsnatz]

Wrong. Police seize property not just on drug raids, but in all kinds of situations, and the money from selling that property goes to - the police department.

Re:Vive la difference!

[tsqr]

This may be true where you live, but it is certainly not true everywhere, or even in most jurisdictions. Generally, revenue from traffic tickets is split between the state and the city where the ticket was issued. The city's portion goes into its general fund. Among other things, the city's police force is paid for out of the city's general fund. So while traffic ticket revenue may not go directly to the police department, at least some portion of it ends up there.

Re:Vive la difference!

[lgw]

Depends on where you live. In most places, it's only slightly indirected - the money goes into the city coffers, and the exact amount of money the police raised in revenue for the city is very much a part of the budget discussions for the police department.

For some things it's worse, like in East Texas where if you're pulled over for DWB and they find you're carrying significant cash, they just keep the cash (or a % of it) under the drug laws. Isn't the war on drugs wonderful?

Re:Vive la difference!

[Curunir_wolf]

At this point, yes you are wrong. The whole point of the Police for is not to protect and serve but to take in enough money to stay alive. If you look at a police department and look at the "crimes" people are arrested and fined for you will see that the vast majority are revenue collection under the guise of breaking a law and nothing more.

You sir, are an idiot.

Police do not get to keep the money they collect. None of that money is allowed to go back to the police department.

Sorry, but you are wrong, especially to assert that "none" of that money goes back to the police department. It's different state-by-state and by jurisdiction, of course, but you'll find that most fines from local tickets go directly to that jurisdiction. For a small town, it could be a significant amount of the municipality's revenue, and of course, the more revenue they have the more they can budget for the police department.

There actually are some jurisdictions where the police department gets a percentage of each fine, and even more have something like a "public safety fund" (controlled by the police department) that gets some amount from each fine. Direct revenue from fines is probably rare, but there are jurisdictions that do that.

And, of course, the worst abuse happens with "asset forfeiture", which allows the police to retain a significant portion of all the assets (including cash) that they confiscate, regardless of whether any charges are even filed against the original property owner. This policy was actually put in place to encourage police, who were becoming skeptical of the US "drug war", to continue to participate.

Re:Vive la difference!

[superdave80]

Well, you really shouldn't be calling other people idiots when you are completely in the wrong. The police do get to keep some of the money they confiscate:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

Catching up to Australia

[Platinumrat]

About 10 years ago, or it could have been longer, we had a similar case in Australia. The driver in question argued that he was just informing other drivers to drive safely. The magistrate agreed with the argument and the charges were dropped. Suffice it to say, the police were mightily annoyed, but there is nothing they can do about it now.

Re:Catching up to Australia

[TapeCutter]

The Victorian police publish the locations of their cameras, they have done so for a number of years under both left and right wing state governments. Also every cop car is fitted with mobile radar that can record the speed of oncoming cars. As for flashing lights, it's almost mandatory these days, I do it myself to warn others to check their speed but few drivers would warn someone who is recklessly speeding, personally I only do it to "hoons" when there are no cops ahead ;).

At the end of the day advertising the locations via the web (or flashing lights) increases the effectiveness of cameras, and adds weight to the claim that the goal is to prevent speeding. The road signs we have here that say "red light camera ahead" make people think twice about racing the amber, a secret red-light camera merely records who caused the inevitable pile up.

Ultimate goals of police

[fyngyrz]

I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law

Lemme just fix that for you:

I mean, the ultimate goals for the police are enjoy an exercise of arbitrary power, to earn ticket income, and to provide an excuse for illegal search and seizure, which in turn serves as a mechanism to provide yet more income, and property.

There you go. Cheers. :)

Speed limit myths

[fyngyrz]

which is cost inefficient

So is driving the speed limit. Time has great value, and the arbitrary declarations of legislators do nothing to erase this signature characteristic.

A less cynical explanation

It's not cynicism. We know why the police issue the vast majority of speeding tickets: To provide income, and to provide an excuse for search and seizure, leading to even more income and property gains. They're generally not saving, protecting, or serving anyone but themselves; And further, in states where unlimited speeds were tried, such as Montana, accident rates went down. In any undertaking, people do better when they aren't bored, are paying the most attention, and are fully engaged in said undertaking.

Re:Confessions Of an Ex-SLASHDOT BETA user

[fyngyrz]

The editors don't read the comments.

Heck, the editors don't even read the summaries, or at least, they don't visibly edit them.

Moderators vote based on agreement.

Welcome to slashdot.

Slashdot's headlong rush into the digg-ification of the site will end just as Digg's did; with the loss of most of the community that made the site worth keeping up with, and worth maintaining for the owners. Digg is still trying to find a model that will remediate the utter destruction cause by the dropping of the user commenting capability (and pro tip, they're not going to find one.)

No one wants to fight with a bad UI. The beta demonstrates a *really* bad UI. The consequences are obvious. Our protests are of no matter.

Re:Good for the judge.

[Areyoukiddingme]

Cops in Texas have been spreading the rumor that flashing headlights at another motorist is a gang challenge and could get you shot.

I shit you not.

Fungible

[gd2shoe]

You sir, are an idiot.

Police do not get to keep the money they collect. None of that money is allowed to go back to the police department.

There is a common fallacy when it comes to how the government spends its money. I mean our money.

Money is fungible. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. It's not like one dollar has higher tensile strength, and another one tastes better. They're all the same. If fines go into the general fund, then where do police funds come from? The general fund? What about when fines go to another fund? Does less money get channeled there, because fines are supporting the difference? Does that not free up that amount of money to be spent where-ever the politicians deem necessary, including the police department?

Whenever the government says "We're not spending those funds there, but other funds." you should be skeptical. They often play a shell game to re-allocate funds in legal, but unsavory ways.