quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:

quote:

Originally posted by ChasinTails:
How about just don’t violate any traffic laws? Then you don’t have to worry about “ghost police cars”. If you do get pulled over and ticketed for a legitimate violation, be accountable, accept the punishment and move on. I don’t understand why it matters what car they pull you over in. If you were speeding, you were speeding. Be a man and pay the fine. Blaming it on an unmarked car is a deflection of accountability. I’ve had my share of tickets and earned them all. I didn’t bitch because I got pulled over by an unmarked car.

I'm in my 50's and never had a ticket. Can I still be concerned? My secondary is a 1000RR that does close to 180mph. I've been pulled over for no other reason than the Deputy entering my plate wrong in which case I still had to follow all laws as if I had been committing a moving violation. As in, I still had to show all papers and be subject to an informal interview as we shot the shit about anything but why I was still being held on the side of the road.
"Don't violate traffic laws" means shit. You can still get pulled over. That's a huge fallacy.

If you’re going to get pulled over anyway, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s a marked or unmarked car, does it?

quote:

I had a discussion with a State Trooper about this and he was defending the overuse of unmarked vehicles.

I said that my wife was uncomfortable with pulling over for an unmarked vehicle, and that she would put on her hazards, call 911, but keep driving to the local fire station or 24 hour gas station (gotta love rural living).

His response? "Does she want a PIT, cause that's how you get PIT"...

I lost all respect for the guy in that moment, called him out for the douche he was, and told him that I really hoped he did that to someone some day, just so I could be there at his misuse of force hearing to relay this conversation.

Yeah - I doubt a PIT would ever be the approved technique for issuing a speeding or lane change ticket. Seems a little harsh doesn't it.

And you can put me in the column of those against unmarked cars. I think ANY speeding ticket is BS revenue generation. Leave us the F alone. If I'm going so fast or weaving lanes, then get me for reckless driving. Otherwise just leave me alone. Me going 75 or 80 in the left lane in light traffic isn't going to hurt a single person (except my mpg maybe).

quote:

Effective traffic enforcement can include a variety of tactics including lower profile and unmarked cars. I see a lot of stuff happen in front of me that simply would not if I was in a marked car.

There is ZERO portion of my job that has anything to do with "revenue."

I'm trying to follow the logic here.

It's not about revenue, it's about safety.

If I'm in a marked car, people drive safely around me, but when I'm in an unmarked car people are doing plenty of unsafe things.

So if the goal is safety, and driving an unmarked car makes people drive unsafely, shouldn't you be driving a marked car in order to achieve your objectives?

We had a local agency that was well known for running a very heavy speed enforcement operation on a local highway. So much so that they had an office in a building next to a highway where they would radar/laser out of the open office window. Every interview ever granted by the police department in relation to this focused on the safety aspect.

Then something weird happened. The State of Missouri limited the amount of revenue a municipality could take in via traffic tickets. All of a sudden that section of highway was a ghost town as far as that police department was concerned. That really confused me. The state merely limited their revenue, and did not prohibit them from stopping as many law breakers as they wished.

If it really was about safety they could still be there, all day long, writing as many warnings as they wished. Why aren't they? Seems to me that contrary to what they always proclaimed, it really was about the revenue.

All of this said, I know there are a bunch of idiots on the road doing things they shouldn't, and those people should be dealt with accordingly. I do believe there is a distinct difference between legitimate enforcement for things like DWI and speed traps which exist solely for the collection of revenue.

Remember these guys from the 70's-80's?



Pretty clearly marked from the side but I bet those were hard to spot in a rear view mirror too.

quote:

Originally posted by mrapteam666:
When I ran traffic and selective enforcement I always ran a fully marked cruiser.

Apologizing ahead of time for the thread drift, but I'd like to ask: what is "selective enforcement?" Some of the cruisers 'round here in the sticks have red and white decals on the push bars and trunk lids with that text, and they get a lot of smarty-pants remarks ("only get the average Joes, leave the judges alone," and stuff like that). But I've never heard an explanation of what "selective" really means in this context. Thank you.

Where I worked, selective meant you studied your crash statistics and focused enforcement in that area. Much focus was on times of occurrence and types of contributing factors causing the crashes.
Thus, we were "selecting" specific areas for enforcement. But we did not specially mark our cars in any way.
Acronym: S T E P
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program.
Cops love acronyms.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Effective traffic enforcement can include a variety of tactics including lower profile and unmarked cars. I see a lot of stuff happen in front of me that simply would not if I was in a marked car.

There is ZERO portion of my job that has anything to do with "revenue."

I'm trying to follow the logic here.

It's not about revenue, it's about safety.

If I'm in a marked car, people drive safely around me, but when I'm in an unmarked car people are doing plenty of unsafe things.

So if the goal is safety, and driving an unmarked car makes people drive unsafely, shouldn't you be driving a marked car in order to achieve your objectives?

We had a local agency that was well known for running a very heavy speed enforcement operation on a local highway. So much so that they had an office in a building next to a highway where they would radar/laser out of the open office window. Every interview ever granted by the police department in relation to this focused on the safety aspect.

Then something weird happened. The State of Missouri limited the amount of revenue a municipality could take in via traffic tickets. All of a sudden that section of highway was a ghost town as far as that police department was concerned. That really confused me. The state merely limited their revenue, and did not prohibit them from stopping as many law breakers as they wished.

If it really was about safety they could still be there, all day long, writing as many warnings as they wished. Why aren't they? Seems to me that contrary to what they always proclaimed, it really was about the revenue.

All of this said, I know there are a bunch of idiots on the road doing things they shouldn't, and those people should be dealt with accordingly. I do believe there is a distinct difference between legitimate enforcement for things like DWI and speed traps which exist solely for the collection of revenue.

I can only speak for where I work. In 2019 (2020 numbers are jacked up because of COVID), we made 14000+ stops and issued citations on about 1800 of them. The average traffic violation fine is $100 and the city is entitled to 90% of that IF the violation is written under city code. Many officers do not write tickets under city code because the violations are usually easier to look up in the computer software under state code. In those cases, the city gets nothing. But, assuming all 1800 stops resulted in one ticket (most are only one) and the city got $90 out of each one, we generated about $162,000 in "revenue" from traffic tickets in 2019. Our department's budget is about $16,000,000. Further, fine revenue is funneled to the city's general fund and not directly to the police department.

Nobody has ever told me that I should be writing more tickets. Nobody has ever told me that they should be written under city code. The only time this department cares about whether you issue a citation or a warning is if you are investigating a crash and a traffic offense contributed to the crash. I think that's logical.

Maybe my agency is the exception, but as I've interacted with a lot of officers from a lot of places, I suspect it is more common than it is not.

And on the topic of marked versus unmarked...

Marked cars are vital to traffic enforcement. They make people behave. Since it IS (at least from where I'm sitting) about safety, I want people driving safely when there isn't a police car around. Knowing that there are some unmarked cars out there (we have very few) hopefully gives some people pause. It also gives you, as I said, the opportunity to address fairly egregious behavior that would not have happened in front of a marked car. The number of people I see texting, gun it to get through a yellow, make bad passes, etc. in an unmarked car is far more than a marked car. Those are things that are good to address.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Where was this?

They have them all over FL, some cities near you...

Florida drivers are absolute maniacs on the road. I say this as someone who drives daily in the Washington, DC Metro area.

I was going to say that these vehicles should be banned but then HRK mentioned Florida. They need to triple the number of these vehicles in Florida.

Hell, they should put them around here as well.

I don’t care about people who drive fast. It’s the aggressive/dangerous drivers I hate, the ones that think they own the road.

If you aren't speeding, it doesn't matter does it? You are admitting you will be breaking traffic laws and want the police to be conspicuously marked so you can stop committing crimes (admittedly minor crimes) when you might get caught.

Don't speed. Or speed and be willing take your chances.

Do you advocate that the police suspend all undercover operations? No more pretend drug buys? No more disguised attempts to bribe suspected corrupt officials? Or is it only undercover operations that may detect the crimes you commit that you oppose?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
If you aren't speeding, it doesn't matter does it? You are admitting you will be breaking traffic laws and want the police to be conspicuously marked so you can stop committing crimes (admittedly minor crimes) when you might get caught.

Don't speed. Or speed and be willing take your chances.

Do you advocate that the police suspend all undercover operations? No more pretend drug buys? No more disguised attempts to bribe suspected corrupt officials? Or is it only undercover operations that may detect the crimes you commit that you oppose?

However, lets assume your spouse/significant other, is driving alone, not speeding, and a ghost "un-marked" police car lights her up.

Would you have her pull over and risk it is/not is a real cop, or, turn on her flashers, call 911, and slowly drive to the nearest fire/police station?

Now is your answer different if it's a regular police vehicle with light bar above it, clearly marked, etc?

Personally I don't think unmarked/ghost marked police cars should ever be used for traffic patrol. If an unmarked car see's an infraction they should radio for a clearly marked car to handle the situation for the reasons above.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: h2oys,

Thank you, YooperSigs.

I'll take unmarked cars vs privately contracted digital camera enforcement for $500 jim.....

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

I'll take unmarked cars vs privately contracted digital camera enforcement for $500 jim.....

Watch out for the red light cameras in Apopka. I got nailed on 441 at Errol. Not $500, but $162, including a "convenience fee." Not very convenient, if you ask me.

out of all the fucked up things in this world this is what occupies your thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

I'll take unmarked cars vs privately contracted digital camera enforcement for $500 jim.....

Watch out for the red light cameras in Apopka. I got nailed on 441 at Errol. Not $500, but $162, including a "convenience fee." Not very convenient, if you ask me.

getting pulled over is inconvienant!!

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

I'll take unmarked cars vs privately contracted digital camera enforcement for $500 jim.....

After I got nailed, I did an informal study. I pulled over to the side of the road at quite a few traffic lights in Apopka and used the stopwatch function of my iPhone to do some timing. Multiple trials indicated that the yellow light lasts for 4 (four) seconds, at those lights that do not have cameras.

However, at the lights that do have cameras, the yellow light lasted for 3 (three) seconds. At 55 mph, you travel 242' in three seconds.

Many of these lights are on Hwy 441, in zones where the speed limit is 55 mph. If it takes one second for a driver to recognize that a green light has just changed to yellow, and for that driver to move his (her) foot to the brake pedal, the vehicle has traveled 81 feet toward the traffic light, leaving just two more seconds to bring the vehicle to a complete stop from 55 mph, before entering the intersection.

A "successful" stop (let's define "successful" as stopping without entering the intersection) under these circumstances is pretty sure to turn any unsecured objects in the vehicle into missiles, and has a good chance of being struck from behind by a following vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by h2oys:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
If you aren't speeding, it doesn't matter does it? You are admitting you will be breaking traffic laws and want the police to be conspicuously marked so you can stop committing crimes (admittedly minor crimes) when you might get caught.

Don't speed. Or speed and be willing take your chances.

Do you advocate that the police suspend all undercover operations? No more pretend drug buys? No more disguised attempts to bribe suspected corrupt officials? Or is it only undercover operations that may detect the crimes you commit that you oppose?

However, lets assume your spouse/significant other, is driving alone, not speeding, and a ghost "un-marked" police car lights her up.

Would you have her pull over and risk it is/not is a real cop, or, turn on her flashers, call 911, and slowly drive to the nearest fire/police station?

Now is your answer different if it's a regular police vehicle with light bar above it, clearly marked, etc?

Personally I don't think unmarked/ghost marked police cars should ever be used for traffic patrol. If an unmarked car see's an infraction they should radio for a clearly marked car to handle the situation for the reasons above.

She is even less likely to speed than me. So your silly argument has no influence on me.

And once the car pulls up, you can see the ghost markings, and the person who gets out is dressed exactly like every other cop in your location. If you can't tell it is a real cop, you are too dumb to have a driver's license.

And how many fake cop stories can you link us to? I'm betting this isn't a widespread problem. Anyone sophisticated to pull off the fake cop scam could mock up a marked car.

If you read about traffic safety studies that impact driver behavior and effects of various traffic calming options, a few things quickly stand out. V Tail nailed one of them. The length of the yellow and the the gap to the green. Mostly it’s simultaneous but you can add a small gap if your traffic engineers want to. Shortening the yellow will get more violations. Adding to it, they drop. It’s pretty linear.

Traffic cameras are all about revenue. No points, no notifications to insurance, nothing but a civil fine whose only teeth is that you can’t register your car the next time if you haven’t paid.

My state loves roundabouts. (Google darth Vader tomtom roundabout for a good laugh) They are the simplest design that seems to befuddle the average driver. Yet it is cheaper than stop lights and doesn’t stagnate traffic like stop signs.

I think we long ago stop doing things for most of the stated reasons. Money drives more than you think. My retired cop bil will straight up tell you they had quotas for tickets. End of the month if you found yourself short you went to your favorite fishing hole. Maybe that has changed or isn’t widespread or common anymore. Hope so.

All that to say, unmarked car tries to pull over my wife I have told her to call 911 and get confirmation or an actual cruiser. If it becomes a bigger ticket or court that is price I’m willing to risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:

quote:

Originally posted by ChasinTails:
How about just don’t violate any traffic laws? Then you don’t have to worry about “ghost police cars”. If you do get pulled over and ticketed for a legitimate violation, be accountable, accept the punishment and move on. I don’t understand why it matters what car they pull you over in. If you were speeding, you were speeding. Be a man and pay the fine. Blaming it on an unmarked car is a deflection of accountability. I’ve had my share of tickets and earned them all. I didn’t bitch because I got pulled over by an unmarked car.

I'm in my 50's and never had a ticket. Can I still be concerned? My secondary is a 1000RR that does close to 180mph. I've been pulled over for no other reason than the Deputy entering my plate wrong in which case I still had to follow all laws as if I had been committing a moving violation. As in, I still had to show all papers and be subject to an informal interview as we shot the shit about anything but why I was still being held on the side of the road.
"Don't violate traffic laws" means shit. You can still get pulled over. That's a huge fallacy.

If you’re going to get pulled over anyway, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s a marked or unmarked car, does it?

My response was in reply to "How about just don’t violate any traffic laws?"