speed traps in ftw and question

So, I commute westbound on I30 in the mornings through downtown to the west side of Ft. Worth. Twice in the last week, I've seen speedtraps set up nabbing folks on the eastbound side. The police will have a number of vehicles (one day it was all copsicles, the other cars) lined up on the onramp from the Hulen road overpass. One officer stands on the overpass and radars the vehicles below and the next officer in line goes in hot pursuit.

I've heard that if you get pulled over, you should ask the officer to see the readout on his radar detector. What would he/she tell you in this case, and could that used to fight a ticket?

I haven't gotten nabbed yet, but I'm scared. I30 has 65, 60, 55, and 50mph limits on it and I see cars getting pulled over on it most every day. I try to keep speeds in check, but maybe I can use this to justify getting a V1.

Not sure what they would do if you asked to see the radar. I guess it would be worth a try.

I got nabbed on this part of the highway on my way to the Joint Reserve Base one weekend. There was no way the nice offier was going to let me off.

Now I always slow down when I hit Fort Worth. It was an expensive lesson.

Pete

brd said:

I've heard that if you get pulled over, you should ask the officer to see the readout on his radar detector. What would he/she tell you in this case, and could that used to fight a ticket?

I try to keep speeds in check, but maybe I can use this to justify getting a V1.

Click to expand...

1st answer .......... Texas law does not require a "lock" from the radar. It also does not require the officer to show you anything. You can even get cited for speeding by visual estimation, that is simply by looking at a vehicle and gauging the speed without using a radar or lidar. I've done this twice in my 13+ years and won both in court. One was a jury trial and one was a bench trial.

My dept uses a modified version of this while flagging in residential neighborhoods. We don't have the manpower to lie-up "cop-sicles" as you call us though. I simply explain the other officer observed the speed but I'm issuing the cite.

No. Using the old "he wouldn't/couldn't show me" is urban myth. One tip though is to check the criminal complaint. The person observing the violation should be listed, not the issuing officer in this case. It's a small technicality and is not very often pursued.

There you go, even after being lumped in with copsicles (where's the shooting the finger emoticon?)


As far as the Valentine goes, save your money. They aren't all they're advertised to be.(I love ticketing folks who have $400 detectors) You know where the heavy enforcement is just slow down.

And BTW, how can it be a SPEED TRAP when everyone seems to know they are there? Seems like they are sitting in PLAIN SIGHT.

10-95 said:

brd said:

I've heard that if you get pulled over, you should ask the officer to see the readout on his radar detector. What would he/she tell you in this case, and could that used to fight a ticket?

I try to keep speeds in check, but maybe I can use this to justify getting a V1.

Click to expand...

There you go, even after being lumped in with copsicles (where's the shooting the finger emoticon?)

And BTW, how can it be a SPEED TRAP when everyone seems to know they are there? Seems like they are sitting in PLAIN SIGHT.

Click to expand...

First, I use the term copsicle as a friendly term, almost like a pet name. I should have used a smiley with it, as it wasn't meant to be deragatory.

Thanks for the other info.

As far as it being a trap, well, they're in plain sight as you're coming westbound, looking over the highway divider at the other side of the freeway, where they are clocking people. First you see the 5 or 6 officers with vehicles pulled over, then the othes lined up on the entrance ramp, and then the one with the radar. If you're travelling eastbound, they are hidden.

I know, the officers are doing their jobs and the speeds are marked. It's not like on the dukes of hazzard where the speed limit signs are hidden by a tree or they have a switch to lower it after the person goes by. And I'm not commuting at 100mph, but I do go with the flow of traffic, which is around 70mph. I'm just worried about getting cited for 15 or even 20 (in the 50mph zones--the traffic flow in general stays at a steady speed) over for trying to keep up with everyone else.

Thanks for your response. Sorry if my first post came off as disrespectful.

Howdy,

I have to weigh in on this one. I've no disrespect for law enforcement, even for traffic stuff. These guys don't make the stoopid laws they have to enforce. Of course, who knows, maybe they have a well financed lobbying organization But getting back to reality, I think the problem is of a more fundamental nature.

Every LEO I have ever heard from will claim until they are blue in the face that speed enforcement is NOT about revenues, but instead is about safety. If we assume that safety really is the underlying goal of traffic enforcement, then it seems that the current system of speed limits is at best a horribly inefficient method of promoting safety. They seem not to take into account the conditions of the road, the weather, visibility, the conditions of vehicles and the desire of the people to travel at particular speeds.

I would think that clear and dry conditions may warrant speeds much higher than 70mph on the interstates during the day, maybe a little less at night because of limited visibility. I would like to see the speed limit on I-45 between Houston and DFW removed completely for a period of a few weeks. I would like to see what the average speed of traffic is in different conditions. I really do think that most of the drivers will drive at speeds that are reasonable for the conditions. Yes there will be those morons that think if there is no speed limit, then they have a RIGHT to drive as fast as their vehicle can move without shaking itself apart, and anyone holding them up has a DUTY to get the **** out of the way! These people are good canididates for having their licenses revoked.

But my goal is to see what an unrestricted flow will do. I realize some people will say this is insane. But, we need to get empirical data about what WILL happen rather than guessing about what MIGHT happen. This way we can make rational decisions about how to best promote safety. The goons going too fast or too slow compared to the average are actually a safety hazzard!! Too fast, and other drivers may not be able to properly interact with them or get out of the way in time. Too slow and traffic gets jammed up, people start getting really miffed, tempers flare, road rage ensues.

The problem for the government is that it needs black and white laws to enforce. If they were to leave it up the judgment of individual officers to decide who is driving recklessly or in an unsafe manner as opposed to just enforcing a set speed limit, there would immediately be cries of foul play, favoritism, no way of knowing when you are good to go or when you will get busted. So in the end, the very people that ***** about the limits are the ones that demand them. It lets us know where the line is. It removes much of the subjectivity out of the process. This is why radar and lidar is so heavily used rather than relying on an officer's subjective judgment of a vehicle's speed. It makes things black and white.

I'd like to see the unrestricted flow experiment used to find better limits and then still allow the LEO to enforce those limits. I think this would eliminate so much of the "game" aspect of speeding and catching speeders. It would limit punishment to those that are really operating their vehicles in an unsafe manner.

In fantasy world, there would be real time flow speed indicators. Both the drivers and LEO would know this real time flow speed. We could then have a rule that says if you are exceeding the current flow speed by more than 10mph, then you get busted. This is based on the idea that most incidences are the result of the relative speed differential among vehicles in the traffic rather than the actual flow speed. Yeah, I know this is totally unworkable in our current reality, but like I said, it is my fantasy

Of course, what happens when there is a flow of one vehicle and he is really moving out? I guess if they don't have any accidents, then defacto they are not operating their vehicle in an unsafe manner? The drunk that manages to weave home without hitting anyone else is safe?

I would really like to see licensing requirements get stiffer and training more rigorous. Most drivers today seem to lack even a basic understanding of the handling characteristics of their vehicles, how to use those characteristics to the best advantage, how to manage traction, etc,... People just want the car to be a gas-n-go proposition that requires no thought. People think of driving as a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. As long as our licensing and training allows this mentality to thrive, we will never see an end to traffic laws geared towards terrible and irresponsible drivers. The lowest common denominator will rule the day. Needless to say, this sucks for motorcycles! :angryfir:

brd,

I didn't take it seriously. Takes alot more to get me mad. Don't worry about it.


Scott,

I often wondered the same thing and I think it would be a good idea. Too bad it'll never happen.

My thoughts are the same. You'd get the majority of the people driving sane and then there'd be the odd joker who would run Autobahn speeds. There are enough trees and concrete barriers to thin them out though.....

There are enough trees and concrete barriers to thin them out though.....

Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that, like drunk drivers, these people seem to take out everyone around them and emerge unscathed?

Cool idea Scott.

That was the actual intent of the 85th percentile rule ... speeds would be set at what the majority of users deemed to be reasonable and prudent. Of course, in the real world politics keep that from happening.

The technology for variable, real-time speed limits already exists. I watched a show about Germany's Autobahn on the Discovery channel where they have just such a thing.

The speed limit signs are LED digital. The speed limits are adjusted in real-time according to overall traffic conditions.

Tourmeister said:

Every LEO I have ever heard from will claim until they are blue in the face that speed enforcement is NOT about revenues, but instead is about safety.

Click to expand...

My last citation for speeding was from a State Trooper on a popular back country road. I know it is usually patrolled on the weekends and I know it has a reputation for eating under-experienced/over-zealous riders. It is patrolled for these reasons. I was out having a good time, paying particular attention to road surface condition, and not so much attention to speed.

Did I deserve a speeding ticket? Most definitely. I was a pretty good amount over the limit.

Was the Trooper rude and anti-biker as I have seen before in the past? No. This was actually a pleasant encounter (for getting a ticket at least) where the Trooper showed genuine concern for my safety. He even stated that they usually patrol on the weekends due to the amount of single vehicle accidents that take place. He had responded earlier in the day to a mishap where an inexperienced cruiser left the road, with little or no safety gear, and broke and arm and a leg. He was happy to see me wearing full gear despite the 95+ ambient temps and understood that I was paying more attention to the road than my speedometer.

I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll get a ticket for speeding, but I'm sure going to try to be a little more aware of my speed and possible LEO encounters.

Well, Montana went for a while without a posted speed limit.
The signs read something like "reasonable and prudent".

I cruised though Montana in no time on my trip from Anchorage, Alaska to Dallas, Texas. (Wonderful road trip by the way)

I set it on 85 and just headed south. That's about all my Wrangler was comfortable with anyway. I had some people pass me, but overall, it was a lonely trip.

What happened to the "reasonable" speed limit?
They changed it back to 70 after only 1 or 2 years.

I was probably the slowest one that drove through there during that time.
What a shame.

C V Man

The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that one person's reasonable is another's insane. There is just too much room for subjective interpretation here. It's too hard to know when you are gonna get busted or not. Beauracracies do not tolerate this very well. They like nice black and white policies and easy to check boxes

Tourmeister said:

The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that one person's reasonable is another's insane.

Click to expand...

I think it was George Carlin who said, "Everyone who drives slower than you is a moron. Everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac."

Heck, I'd be happy if folks just heeded the "slower traffic keep right" signs! :angryfir:

Steve

> "Heck, I'd be happy if folks just heeded the "slower traffic keep right" signs!"

Here! Here!

Lack of lane discipline is one of the most infuriating things I experience on the road.




"The Germans may have lost two World Wars, But they know how to use two lanes."

http://www.driverightpassleft.com

It's so easy!

Drive Right - Pass Left

Is it just me or do the Germans have their left and right mixed up? They must have been drinking when they made that sign.

As for speed limits...it seems so ridiculous for the speed on the exact same stretch of road, with no obvious differences for tens of miles, to change from one mile to the next.

Here's a good exaple of a really stupid set of speed limits. 290 east bound feeder between Barker Cypress and Telge is posted at 55 mph. The 290 main lanes are posted at 65, yet the exit ramp from from the 65 mph main lanes to the 55 mph feeder is 35 mph! What moron came up with that?

C V Man said:

Well, Montana went for a while without a posted speed limit.
The signs read something like "reasonable and prudent".
...
What happened to the "reasonable" speed limit?
They changed it back to 70 after only 1 or 2 years.

Click to expand...

Weren't certain stretches of the Montana Interstate some of the deadliest in the country during that time? Thought I heard it was...

I like Tourmeister's idea in principle, but I kinda shudder at the thought of riding in the midst of 200 Excursions weaving at 95 mph...

I'm worried that the same 85% of folks that determine the (probably) higher speeds of a given roadway are lousy drivers anyway. Recipe for disaster. When 85% of the drivers Out There are better trained and take driving (esp. at high speed) more seriously, THEN let them determine the speed limit...

I'm worried that the same 85% of folks that determine the (probably) higher speeds of a given roadway are lousy drivers anyway.

Click to expand...

Hmm... good point. Problem is, you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, I don't think the Gov could get away with making everyone go back to driving school to get their licenses renewed. It would lead to mass revolt! Maybe if we launched a huge propaganda campaign extolling the virtues of good driving skills!? But have you ever met anyone that did not think they were an excellent driver? :| What to do...?

In my Defensive Driving classes we do an exercise where everyone writes down how they rate themselves as drivers on a scale of 1 - 10. Then they write down a rating for all those "other" drivers.

Invariably they average 8.5 for themselves and 5 for everyone else.

These are the same people who are shocked to learn that some people consider it rude to drive in the left lane and think tailgating is the best thing to do when someone won't get out of their way in the left lane.