Cop Stop! What to do:

[Highwayman]

Army, on FOP stickers, my luck would be to get stopped by a cop that has a major beef with the union.

[dodgegurl]

Army.... c'mon now. " I have "on occasion" breached the local speed limits although I try to keep it down"
On occasion? have you stopped breaching the stop signs yet?

[Army_of_One]

Breaching stop signs? I plead the 5th!!! This post is about speeding....lets save the stop sign breaching for another post....

[wordsmythe]

Next time you get that call to donate to the FOP or any other police or fier organization ask the caller what percentage their company gets and how much actually goes to that cause.

Last time I asked it was an 80/20 split in favor of the telemarketing company.

If you want to donate to those organizations you should send the check directly to them.

[NoLongerInRadioGuy]

You are right, a lot of different factors can influence a radar reading, that is not in dispute. However, from my experience, having seen several things effect the radar unit, the only one I have seen that will make a slight (4-8mph) difference is the cosine effect, which is precisely why we try to be as close to head on as possible. Before we pull someone over for speeding, we are trained to estimate the speed before turning on the radar. If I see a car coming towards me in a 30 mph zone and I estimate it at 50 mph, turn on my radar, and it shows 53 mph, then I have no reason to think it is not correct. Then, I see the 53 mph, speeding driver sees me, and hits his brakes. I react as quickly as I can, but I lock the radar at 46 mph as he is slowing down. I am still going to write the ticket for 53 mph because that is the speed he was going, and I will testify under oath the car was going 53 mph.

[Tee]

I commend you on your honesty, and I believe everything you said in your post. As a matter of practice, I have a problem with two things, though...

You say, if you witness a speed higher than what you lock into your radar gun then you will write the ticket for that amount and then testify to it under oath. Maybe you have always told the truth under oath, but I can assure you, that is not the case with everyone. I personally, have witnessed several times where an official that was testifying either outright lied or had forgotten facts of the case while on the bench. Our basic civil rights guarantee that we have the right to confront our accusers and challenge any evidence. The practice of writing the ticket for higher than what was locked into the radar gun and then simply relying on the officers observations as gospel seems to trump that principle.

I submit that officers should be required to work on the "you snooze, you lose" principle, where if you are so eager to get an extra mile or two per hour locked into the readout and you neglect in locking in the highest speed, then that's too bad. You write the ticket for what is locked and for what can be shown to the accused.

Let's change the scenario- let's say the vehicle is 200-300 feet out and there is no way he can see or identify you as a patrol vehicle, therefor, he is not braking (but you don't know that). You clock him doing 62 in a 55 and the readout is steady but then drops to 57 as you lock the radars speed. You stop him and write him for 62 in a 55 mph zone. Now what you failed to realize is that your momentary reading of 62 was actually generated by a UPS truck traveling the same direction on an adjacent parallel side street that was slightly obscured by some bushes and trees. Since the UPS truck provided the better and larger reflective surfaces, it was the better lock for a bit before the gun acquired the smaller car.

Lemme just ask you this- and I a want to say again that I appreciate and respect your honesty...

Does the radar gun require interpretation by the operator to determine it's target, and factors that may or may not render it's readout inaccurate?

And if you answered yes, then why isn't it good practice to employ a system whereupon a speed for which a person is cited for, can be shown to the accused?

[lurker]

Nice debate here.

In my mind, we should abandon the revenue concept and go back to public safety. Under that concept, writing a ticket for 57 in a 55 with the understanding (as could be noted on the ticket) that the offender was given a break, but the offender is being required to answer to a speeding charge provides the same deterrent to the motoring public. All drivers know when they are passing adjacent traffic and most officers know what is reasonable and prudent.

Drivers with an extreme disregard to public safety will show themselves by their very nature.

[NoLongerInRadioGuy]

Originally Posted by Tee

Let's change the scenario- let's say the vehicle is 200-300 feet out and there is no way he can see or identify you as a patrol vehicle, therefor, he is not braking (but you don't know that). You clock him doing 62 in a 55 and the readout is steady but then drops to 57 as you lock the radars speed. You stop him and write him for 62 in a 55 mph zone. Now what you failed to realize is that your momentary reading of 62 was actually generated by a UPS truck traveling the same direction on an adjacent parallel side street that was slightly obscured by some bushes and trees. Since the UPS truck provided the better and larger reflective surfaces, it was the better lock for a bit before the gun acquired the smaller car.

Lemme just ask you this- and I a want to say again that I appreciate and respect your honesty...

Does the radar gun require interpretation by the operator to determine it's target, and factors that may or may not render it's readout inaccurate?

And if you answered yes, then why isn't it good practice to employ a system whereupon a speed for which a person is cited for, can be shown to the accused?

First, I can say that I work in the city, so usually speeding enforcement I deal with is on main roadways around town where the UPS scenario would be a far stretch to have happen. Is it possible? Yes, by laws governing radar and how it works, it is possible. Is it likely? Probably not. While it is true the radar is going to naturally reflect the movement of the larger object, both targets would have to be fairly close together in order for an average officer to confuse it. The radar is pointed either straight forward or straight backward - so, the radar signal initially goes straight, and the natural tendancy for it is to keep going straight. The further it goes at an angle - such as picking up a vehicle on a side road instead of a vehicle directly in front - the tone created by the vehicle on the side should be distorted and unclear, even though it might be giving a reading. Again, an average officer should be able to distinguish between the tones created.

Some officers will not pull over someone speeding unless they have it locked on radar for precisely the reasons you mention. However, the majority of us are honest people and have no reason to add a mile or two against someone we saw speeding. Personally, if I do have it locked and the person is being reasonable and not rude or belligerent, I have no problem showing them my radar unit, and I exlplain to them Kansas state law does not require me to, but I am willing to anyway. If I do not have it locked in (which, by the way, is maybe 1 out of 25 stops for speeding), and they ask to see it (which people hardly ever do in the first place), I explain to them I did not have it locked but I did see the speed and got an accurate tone on the radar and will testify to what I saw in court should they decide to contest it. I am not argumentative about it, but I just lay it out for them.

[Tee]

Thanks for clarifying and for being so civil and informative. Great post!!

[lurker]

The best solution for compliance I've heard was in a comedy skit. The fellow offered that speeders be sent to a penalty box where they wait-out the penalty. 10 minutes for every mile over.... so a 40 in a 30 would cost the driver 100 minutes in the box. No fine or buy out on the time deal. I know I'd be more careful when I absolutely had to be somewhere "on time."

Instant enforcement/penalty is much better than justice delayed.