Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Politics

Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras 807

Posted by Zonk
from the a-little-hair-of-the-irony-dontcha-think dept.
caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras

Comments Filter:
  • by Etherwalk (681268) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:30PM (#18710977)
    Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.
    • by GiovanniZero (1006365) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:47PM (#18711301) Homepage Journal
      A quick story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • by gardyloo (512791) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:54PM (#18711411)
        Was there a Krispy Kreme in that neighborhood?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DragonWriter (970822)

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

        Still, as I see it, there is no reason they shouldn't get a ticket if there is no clear evidence of the applicability of an emergency exception (clearly, if the camera shows their emergency lights on, that's another story), and be allowed to respond to the ticket and present the case for a non-obvious exception if they so desire.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ashooner (834246)
        As often as cops (perhaps inevitably) seem to lack respect for the repsonsibility of their authority, I have to agree with GZ on this one. Police usually are given the right to speed without their lights, and this is a reasonable need. On the other hand, a friend of mine while driving home from work late one night witnessed a cop kill a man by t-boning him as he was making a left turn at an intersection; the cop was going over 20mph over the speed limit without his lights on. In that case the cop was not he
      • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @09:28PM (#18712591) Journal
        Well, we have absolute no way of knowing what was going on. Perhaps they were hunting for a very large deer. To me, whether to use lights and sirens in an emergency is based on the situation and I'm willing to give leeway here.

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

        From TFA:

        "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."
        Well, anything can happen on "some calls." However, a dispatcher has spoken with the person who made the call and, I assume, made a determination whether something was an emergency or not. It is not the police officer's job to second-guess the dispatcher and decide whether or not a call should be an emergency.
        • by hexmem (97431) on Friday April 13, 2007 @12:37AM (#18714255)
          Oh yes it is their job to second-guess dispatch. I'm a firefighter and dispatch gets it wrong ALL THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          (c) exceed the maximum speed limits; or

          (d) disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
          • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:51AM (#18714743) Journal

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

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

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

            But if there's no emergency, there is no reason for police or firefighters to be deciding otherwise and break the law.
      • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:39AM (#18714659)
        Cops see suspicious cars all the time. Maybe they're driving strangely, whatever, the point is that they need to have the freedom to investigate. As someone who gets a DWB around once a year, I'd like to see MORE not less restrictions on their "freedom to investigate."
    • by morari (1080535) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @08:11PM (#18711643) Journal
      More so, those in a position of power (police officers, politicians, etc.) should face an even more severe punishment for breaking the law than your Average Joe. They have more responsibility and are (at least theoretically) suppose to be looked up to as a pillar of society.
      • by RealGrouchy (943109) on Friday April 13, 2007 @12:13AM (#18714111)
        I hear that.

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

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

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

        - RG>
    • by ari_j (90255) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @08:26PM (#18711907)
      Here's my rule: If the lights aren't flashing, every law applies just as it would to me. If the lights are flashing, then a radio call is mandatory to have a record of why they're flashing and all traffic laws are suspended so long as you drive within reason given the circumstances. But if the lights aren't flashing, follow the laws.

      We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. As soon as certain men are exempt from laws because of their status as government officers, we're a nation of men. That's bad.
    • by joto (134244) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @10:52PM (#18713427)

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

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

      I believe that just about sums it up.

  • Mixed views (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nebaz (453974) * on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:31PM (#18710991)
    On the one hand, I'm glad that cops will be forced to obey the law, and not think they are above it. There are cops in my town who park in the fire lane all day.

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

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

        I think my hatred of these red light cameras outweigh my delight about the police getting their ironic comeuppance. I think they should be banned.
    • Re:Mixed views (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bender0x7D1 (536254) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:42PM (#18711191)

      Here in Iowa, red light cameras have been shut down because the courts ruled they were illegal. The story can be found here. [thenewspaper.com] There is even a proposal to ban all camera-based ticketing in the state.

    • is to make them applicable to EVERYONE. The politicians who voted for them. The cops who run them. EVERYONE.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BumBiscuit (744070)
      Amen, brother!

      From my perspective, the worst thing about red light cameras is that there's no human entity there to accuse you of committing a crime.

      If I go to court over one of these tickets, aren't I entitled to face my accuser? Obviously, I can't question the box that took my picture, so it's my word against whose exactly? The manufacturer? The guy who periodically calibrates the device? Or is it just assumed that the machine is infallible and no argument on my part is necessary or worthy of consider
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:33PM (#18711015)
    Red-light cameras don't take into account that there are good reasons to run through red lights. Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time. What if there is rain or snow on the ground? You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.

    At least if a human cop sees you run a red light for a reason, you can explain that to him and he can let you go. The cameras are unforgiving. They are totally biased, because they assume if the camera catches you, you are in the wrong. That's not always the case.
    • by PhxBlue (562201) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:47PM (#18711293) Homepage Journal

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

      Speeding.

      What if there is rain or snow on the ground?

      Unsafe driving for conditions.

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lhand (30548)
      Here's an example. I was stuck at a red light on my motorcycle. The traffic sensor was not set up to be sensitive enough to detect that my bike was there so the light never would change to green unless another car came along. No car was comming along, there was no cross traffic. I waited for several minutes and finally just rode through. The camera would have given me a ticket.

      Of course, the camera didn't sense me either so no one else ever knew.
  • by Yo Grark (465041) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:33PM (#18711019)
    They don't signal.

    They don't follow street laws

    They tailgate people at night to "nudge" people into doing wrong.

    So it's caught on camera you say? So they object you say?

    Go figure. Hey while your at it meter-maids, grow a backbone and give them a ticket for illegally parking going for coffee.

    Bah

    Yo Grark
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by soft_guy (534437)
      My biggest problem with them is the gunning down of innocent citizens and the framing of innocent people.
  • by Coopjust (872796) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:34PM (#18711043)
    I think that cops SHOULD be held accountable for running a red light if they're on patrol, or just driving back to the precinct. The upholders of the law should be held to the law as well.

    That said, there are numerous acceptable reasons for a cop to run a red light. A few I can think of off the top of my head...
    -An officer is on his way to stop or going to the scene of a 911 call.
    -A suspect car runs a red light as well, and in order to continue, pursuit, the cop must also run the red light.

    At this point, technology is still in earlier stages, but...
    -You could make a filter with police car license plates, and forward them to the appropriate precinct.
    -If not possible, human verification and forwarding.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Belial6 (794905)
      It's very simple. A cop should never, under any circumstances go through a red light without his lights and siren. Anything less is an clear, immediate and unnecessary danger to lives of the citizens in the area. Any time the lights and siren go on, the computer that is now standard equipment in police cars should be logging that the emergency system was turned on. At the end of the day/week/whatever the calls logged should match 100% with the computer log. Any missing call logs should require an expla
  • by RichPowers (998637) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:39PM (#18711149)
    Here's one I can support: the mayor, city councilmen, and traffic engineers who supported the red light cameras in the first place shall pay a $2000 fine if photographed running a red light. Then we'll see how fast those fucking cameras get taken down.

    The law makes exceptions for emergencies, hot pursuits, etc. Those are the only times when an officer should be running a red light. If they break the law, they can pay the price like other citizens.
  • by Thunderstruck (210399) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:39PM (#18711151)
    Minnesota's highest court recently struck down the use of these cameras, as practiced in the Twin Cities, because the ticket automatically charged the owner of the car, without concern for whether they were actually driving or not when the picture was taken.

    Red Light Cameras [thenewspaper.com]

  • I would follow that it is not just police, fire, and ambulance that should always follow the law except when it is in public interest, but that politicians and celebrities should follow the law too, and also that it doesn't necessarily need to be a "public interest" - If my friend has a gunshot wound and I'm driving him to the hospital in my car (and I'm not in an ambulance...), I do not have malicious intent if I slow for a red light, make sure no one is coming, and then carry on through the intersection. In such a situation, I shouldn't get a ticket either.

    I've seen countless police officers that pull people over, then cruise down the road at 90mph, set up another speed trap, pull someone over...if there's no need for the officer to speed, he shouldn't be doing it either.
  • by quanticle (843097) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:45PM (#18711257) Homepage
    In my city (Minneapolis), all of the traffic lights have sensors on them that warn other motorists when emergency vehicles are approaching. These sensors are wired to the lights and sirens of the vehicle, so that they get priority when approaching intersections. How hard is it to tie these sensors to the red-light cameras so that they're disabled while the emergency vehicle has to go through the intersection?

    On the other hand, if the cop didn't have his lights and sirens on when he ran the red light, he should be held accountable just like any other citizen. There was no emergency, therefore he had no right to break the rules.
  • It gets better (Score:5, Interesting)

    by overshoot (39700) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:48PM (#18711323)
    The city of Scottsdale, AZ installed speed cameras on a stretch of State Route 101. The stretch is one of the deadliest in the State, with fatal single-vehicle wrecks at well over 100 mph.

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

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

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

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

  • by rbanzai (596355) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:50PM (#18711359)
    I worked at two police departments.

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

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

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

    Bottom line: if the regulations specify obeying the law then they damn well ought to. They are setting a horrible example. When the regulations allow it they should of course feel free to go all out.
  • From Dallas (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bahwi (43111) <incoming@josephguhli n . com> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:51PM (#18711373) Homepage
    I live in Dallas currently, and let me say, these cameras are starting to go up everywhere, at just about every single light in the city. And Dallas, especially around the downtown area, lights are designed to make you want to run them. There's a set of lights on Commerce St that all match, except one, in the middle, so you can typically breeze halfway through most of them and then you have to wait, can go one, and have to wait for that one then you can finish. It's ridiculous, it's a tiny street never used by anybody, and if they are they have to turn onto Commerce(one way, 3 point intersection).

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

    That being said, and the cameras not about to go anywhere, I find it quite fabulous that an officer is being forced to pay. We had a whole spat of police fired within the past two years because of unpaid traffic fines in different cities and counties and this just adds to the fun. Of course we're completely understaffed, have a terrible corrupt staff, and a high crime rate by police officers who will not look at anything except a speeder. I actually went to report a break in of a car(that was happening at that exact moment) and an office told me he needs to steal the car and speed or he won't care. Then they tried to beat up on our Derby Girls! [dallasobserver.com] C'mon! That's just low.
  • by biocute (936687) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:54PM (#18711409) Homepage
    We watch "red-light" web cameras.
  • by mschuyler (197441) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @09:34PM (#18712657) Homepage Journal
    [/yelling and screaming]

    Lot of outrage and grandstanding here about this issue. It's all justified, of course. Not that you don't know this, but there's an unwritten rule. When a whore was asked if she ever experienced sexual pleasure with a John, she said, "Do cops get tickets?"

    My brother in law was a cop. He got fired for speeding, kind of, a long story. If a cop out of uniform is pulled over by a patrol car, there's only one thing he has to do. Be polite and show his badge. No ticket. End of story. That's the way it is.

    [yelling and screaming]
  • Safety first (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tobiah (308208) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @09:34PM (#18712667)
    Twice I've come close to being hit by a police car running a red light without sirens, once on foot and once while driving. I didn't look and say "oh, police, maybe they're going to run the light." I doubt they did it on purpose, just thought it was clear so they went. It was late at night, in a residential district. I'm sure they didn't want to make a nuisance at that late hour, but they didn't seem to be in any hurry either. They ran the light as a course of habit. The law is there for a reason, which is to promote safety. The sirens are there to safely make an exception to traffic law. Emergency vehicle drivers in the habit of running red lights will fail to notice pedestrians and drivers. If penalties and fines are what it takes to get everyone else to obey the law, that's what it will take to make our emergency vehicle drivers obey the law, and more importantly, that's what it will take to make them safe.
  • by Grimster (127581) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @09:37PM (#18712709) Homepage
    one word describes my reaction to this
    that word?
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Seriously there is no other reaction to this beyond intense, hearty, belly laughs. So it's "ok" if some schmoe (like me) gets a ticket with these cameras but god FORBID some COP gets one from them. Cops shouldn't be the EXCEPTION to the laws, they should be the EXAMPLE.

    How many cops have I seen going home from their shift and "blue thru" a traffic light? (By "blue thru" I mean turn on their lights and pull through what is normally a busy intersection in their quest to get the fuck home, like the rest of "us") I've seen a LOT (growing up in a small town you just get used to seeing cops using their position for personal.. not really gain let's call it personal "comfort").

    So all I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA really that's my only reply to this.
  • Police? Law? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @11:12PM (#18713599) Homepage
    We're happily building a police state that will be nearly unkillable. But, remember kids: Police states are run for the benefit of the police -- and whoever their bosses are. The police and their bosses will never, ever be subject to the same surveillance YOU will endure all the days of your life. It's a mook's game. Don't cave into the hive mind: security is not more important than freedom.

    And it's not like you all spend your days in Baghdad, anyway. What do you need all that security for? You're being conned.
  • Dumb question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @11:32PM (#18713771) Homepage Journal
    This might sound naive, but don't the cameras also photograph the light to show that it was red at the time? Or do they just photograph the plate, assuming the light was red?

    I would be more comfortable if the photo showed a car actually running a red light, photoshoping notwithstanding.
  • by blhoward2 (1087825) on Friday April 13, 2007 @04:38AM (#18715573)
    As a cop and a volunteer EMT/fire fighter, I have some insight on this. Anyone running lights and sirens is exempt from stopping at red lights though they are entirely responsible as they are considered offensive drivers when doing so. That means their insurance pays no matter what if they hit you. In most states, fire trucks and ambulances are limited to an arbitrary limit above the speed limit, so say speed limit + 10 mph. Cops are not restricted to this limit due to the need for even faster arrival, the maneuverability of their vehicles, and the amount of training they receive (roughly 10 times that of an ambulance or fire truck driver, most departments average around 100 hours behind the wheel in high-speed situations)

    Some other points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...