AARoads Forum

I think it is pretty dirty to ticket people with an unmarked cop car or with photo enforcement (speed cameras, red light cameras, etc). I have a problem with both, but I think photo enforcement is the worst of the two as they can ticket people all day and have no limit. If the speed limit is 55 and everyone is going 70 they can literally ticket thousands of people in just one day. The cameras of course don't realize that the guy going 55 is actually a moving hazard on the road. All police cars IMO should have to be marked. The only reason they are not marked is because they are just trying to collect more money from drivers on the road. I have never been pulled over or caught by a camera, but I think it is ridiculous how bad it has gotten on the road. The government is literally trying to extort money from drivers on the road. I absolutely hate the red light cameras. Anytime I'm anywhere that has them I often wonder if I will get a ticket for turning right on red. I assume not since there is no signs that say no turn on red, but I always wait until the light turns green just to be safe. If the government is going to ticket people they need to use marked police cars only. Just my thought.

Guaranteed not everyone is going 70 in a 55 zone.  Otherwise, no one is passing anyone else.  And while the speed difference is a concern for accidents, I can also guarantee you that most people going 55 aren't going to be rear-ended.

Unmarked cars are good because many drivers will become the world's most perfect driver when they spot a marked car.  With unmarked cars, those people will continue to drive without regard for anyone's safety.  Now, pulling someone over is always a concern because that person can't be certain the car is a cop car.  Most unmarked cars have plenty of lights, and many departments are moving to the stealth cars which barely have a visible emblem.  However, when I've seen the lights flash on those cars, you can be certain it's not some creep that decided to install literally dozens of lights all over the vehicle!

Neither should be used.  A marked police car should be considered part of the uniform of the officer performing traffic duty.  There are far, far too many jackasses out there posing as police in far too many unmarked Crown Victorias and other such vehicles.

Photo enforcement is just a bad idea, period.

Also, they should get the hell out of the median.

Managing traffic flow as opposed to revenue enhancement is my idea of how to patrol streets and highways.  Add in good designs to hold down the boobytrap factors that cause accidents.

Back in the mid-Seventies, the CHP said "If you pass us you get a ticket!".  That deal let them shepherd clumps of traffic during rush hour quite nicely and the road flow was smoothed out.  What an improvement that was over simply sitting by a freeway ramp ready to zoom up on an isolated speeder!

Traffic generally regulates itself.  Mark a road 70 MPH, add lots of vehicles during rush hour and no one is going to go fast.  Mark a road 55 MPH, have it be empty and straight with high visibility conditions, then someone can go 70 MPH with little adverse effect to safety.  Change from speed limits to recommended speeds where possible. 

Rick

I'd rather the cops concentrate on real crime. I'd rather have a cop parked across from a suspected drug dealer's house than driving up and down the interstate running radar.

I'm not a fan of either.

If a marked police car makes people drive better, then it's doing its job.  Getting people to drive better, not collecting revenue from those who don't, should be the goal.  I've heard that in some places police cars are parked and abandoned by the side of the road (no cop, no camera, no tickets) to get people to slow down and drive better.  Using unmarked cars shows that they want people to drive badly and pay fines more than they want road safety.

I don't like cameras overall, because they give bad incentives.  I've heard some cities shorten yellow light times, which makes the intersection more dangerous.  Increased yellow light times are a way to make some intersections safer without cameras.  On the other hand, I've seen extreme disregard for red lights.  Some place on the north side of Dallas, it might have been on Northwest Highway, I saw traffic keep moving through a red light for nearly half of the red cycle.  I couldn't believe it, but everyone just waited for it to be over as if it was normal.  In such extreme cases, maybe cameras are the lesser of two evils.

Disclaimer: I have about a half-million miles and 20 years of driving experience.  I've never been in an accident or had a traffic ticket.  I did once get a speeding warning while not paying attention driving down a hill.  I make complete stops at stop signs in the middle of nowhere in places with no traffic.  I believe we have a societal obligation to obey the laws and I do so unless it's clearly unsafe to.  I'm not a scofflaw who resents getting caught or wants to get away with it.  My views are based on the belief that government should be transparent and ethical, and should be motivated by public good.

Quote from: wxfree on August 10, 2015, 12:54:25 PM
I've heard that in some places police cars are parked and abandoned by the side of the road (no cop, no camera, no tickets) to get people to slow down and drive better.

I know of a small NH town that does just this. When the police department (which has only 3 or 4 members) bought a new patrol car, they requested (and got) voter approval to keep the old one in their inventory for just this purpose.


iPhone

First, of course, it is a scientific fact that speed does not kill, or even cause accients.  As the awful NMSL has been finally repealed, EVERY SL increase has resulted in reductions of traffic mortality and morbidity.  Scientifc facts.  So, of course, what we really should do is continue to raise the SLs until the $$ are not there and jurisdictions "invest" their (our) money in fighting serious crimes.

As to unmarked cars, these should be illegal everywhere in every circumstance.  The papers are full of stories of rapists and other criminals who capture their victims by posing as a traffic cop.  In  fact when you enter a state, one of the signs should proudly infom you NOT to stop for an unmarked car in any circumstances. 

As to the unconstitutional crime of photo cop (which, I am proud to say is 100% illegal in WV), science again has taught us that this device actually CAUSES accidents, at least in the yellow light scenario, because potential victims stop short and get rear ended more often. 

So, of course, both of these froms of random taxation should be illegal.  Actually so should the use of marked cars.  Until we solve problems like rape, murder, drugs, illegal aliens, robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and so on.  You know,  SERIOUS crimes.

While there are stories about people getting pulled over by unmarked cars, I'm not finding "the papers are full of stories" like this.  Occasionally they happen, but really, not that often.  Now, I've seen email forwards and Facebook stories about it, but many times they aren't legit. For example, there's one story where someone was supposedly followed by an 'unmarked' car with flashing lights for miles. These criminals aren't going to hang onto a victim forever...if the person doesn't stop in short order, they're going to turn off the flashing light and leave.  But people see these email/Facebook generated stories and think they are true, even though there's no actual evidence it occurred.

Even if a state - or the entire country - bans unmarked cars, that's not going to stop some criminals from attempting it.  Some victims are going to see a flashing light in their rear view mirror and pull over.  It's like many other issues: You can ban the lawful use of something, but that's not going to stop criminals from utilizing something unlawfully.  It's up to the victim to have enough understanding to just keep driving if they feel they shouldn't be pulled over.

Unmarked police vehicles are fine, as long as the officer or officers inside wear clearly recognizable police uniform clothing.

Speed cameras are also fine, but not for purposes of collecting a commuter tax or toll. 

Placement or installation of speed cameras should not ever be under the control of county or municipal elected officials, and before such a camera is installed, a traffic engineer (with a P.E. license) should be required to visit the location and determine if the posted speed limit is appropriate and an conduct an analysis determine if speeding is a problem - the P.E. should work for (or be contracted to) the state DOT, with the county or municipal government paying all associated costs to the state to assure that the P.E. does not submit a report that results in a "disappointed" or angry customer if a proposed speed camera is rejected.

Once the state approves a speed camera, and the state DOT (ideally someone with the title of secretary or commissioner or administrator) signs-off on its placement, then it can be installed for a fixed time period (maybe 12 or 24 months). 

Contracts with companies operating these devices must be fixed-price, and the amount paid to the contractor should never be a function of how much fine revenue is collected.

My feelings about red light cameras are about the same.  As long as there is a problem there, and the signals are timed to comply with ITE recommended practices for yellow phases and clearance intervals, I am fine with them.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2015, 01:25:45 PM
As to unmarked cars, these should be illegal everywhere in every circumstance.  The papers are full of stories of rapists and other criminals who capture their victims by posing as a traffic cop.  In  fact when you enter a state, one of the signs should proudly infom you NOT to stop for an unmarked car in any circumstances.

Connecticut might not agree with you.  Nearly every Connecticut trooper car is unmarked.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 02:58:10 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2015, 01:25:45 PM
As to unmarked cars, these should be illegal everywhere in every circumstance.  The papers are full of stories of rapists and other criminals who capture their victims by posing as a traffic cop.  In  fact when you enter a state, one of the signs should proudly infom you NOT to stop for an unmarked car in any circumstances.

Connecticut might not agree with you.  Nearly every Connecticut trooper car is unmarked.

Some Hawaii counties might also disagree. Hawaii County (the Big Island) used to have no county-owned patrol cars at all, relying entirely on its policemen's personal vehicles with magnetic-mount rooftop blue lights, though reportedly in recent years county-owned vehicles have been added to the patrol car fleet. Honolulu County has also relied on a mix of personally-owned and marked county-owned patrol cars.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 10, 2015, 01:59:37 PM
While there are stories about people getting pulled over by unmarked cars, I'm not finding "the papers are full of stories" like this.  Occasionally they happen, but really, not that often.

And even when "the papers are full of stories" about something, that doesn't always mean that reality is full of instances of it actually happening.


iPhone

Quote from: SP Cook on August 10, 2015, 01:25:45 PM
As to unmarked cars, these should be illegal everywhere in every circumstance.  The papers are full of stories of rapists and other criminals who capture their victims by posing as a traffic cop.  In  fact when you enter a state, one of the signs should proudly inform you NOT to stop for an unmarked car in any circumstances. 

New York agreed, although the ban has since been lifted:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/18/nyregion/pataki-curbs-unmarked-cars-use.html
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S289-2009

Quote from: wxfree on August 10, 2015, 12:54:25 PM
I've heard that in some places police cars are parked and abandoned by the side of the road (no cop, no camera, no tickets) to get people to slow down and drive better.

I remember seeing one of these parked along I-88 near Naperville, IL years ago.  It even had a mannequin in it.  It was in the same place for several days in a row.  One day someone left a large donut box on the hood.

Quote from: Purgatory On Wheels on August 10, 2015, 05:22:40 PM
One day someone left a large donut box on the hood.

This is the kind of humour that shows some people actually have a sense of humor.

Unmarked cars don't bother me that much, but photo speed enforcement really does, MD and DC.  Since red light cameras just got the boot from NJ, I hope we can keep any kind of automated enforcement permanently out.

Quote from: wxfree on August 10, 2015, 12:54:25 PM
.... I've heard that in some places police cars are parked and abandoned by the side of the road (no cop, no camera, no tickets) to get people to slow down and drive better.  Using unmarked cars shows that they want people to drive badly and pay fines more than they want road safety.

....

This is sometimes done here in Fairfax County with marked cars, usually the ubiquitous Crown Vics. I do not know whether it's throughout the county or whether it's just the Lee District office that does it, as I usually see it on my trips to and from the Metrorail stop or the grocery store. It should be readily apparent to people when a cop car is out there as a decoy because they park them in places where the cop could not easily come out and pursue you if you're speeding–usually up a curb between some trees or the like. Most people do hit the brakes when they see them, though.

Unmarked cop cars don't bother me a whole lot because I'm used to them, though I also think if the cops wish to use unmarked cars, it's incumbent on them to allow the motorist a little leeway (especially at night) to pull off the road in a place where there are other people around or (again, at night) that's well-lit or the like, basically as a hedge against impostors. Of course it's also incumbent on the motorist to explain to the cop why he didn't pull off immediately.

I'm used to DC's speed cameras but I still find them rather pointless in terms of "safety" because so many of us know where they are and we do exactly what you'd expect–sail along at whatever speed we prefer and then slow down to pass the camera. I'm kind of surprised, actually, that DC and Maryland have not adopted the insidious "average speed check" system used in work zones in England, where they set up multiple cameras and the system reads your number plate and calculates your average speed based on how long it took you to travel the known fixed distance between the cameras. My British friends all warned me about this before I drove back across the M4 from Bristol to Heathrow a few years ago because there was a somewhat lengthy work zone somewhere between Reading and the M25 junction, if I recall correctly.

I have a license-plate cover that smears the image so the camera can't read it. Problem is, it works too well: It also makes your plate illegible to other drivers. It's not on any of the cars because I got pulled over by a Virginia state trooper, although instead of giving me a ticket he handed me a socket wrench and told me to remove it while he watched. I was going to remove it anyway because we were driving to Montreal a few weeks later and I didn't think it'd be a good idea to have that thing on the car at the border! I've never bothered to put it back on the car.

Unmarked cars are best for duties that aren't traffic-related. Much easier to keep tabs on drug houses and criminals if there isn't a shiny cop car, especially now that cops (at least around here) are using Tauruses and Chargers, both of which are quite common civilian vehicles. I think traffic cops should be in vehicles with at least some form of marking just for safety reasons. Still a decent amount of people impersonating cops at night around here.

Red light cameras are a yes if used properly. Most of the country has a huge issue with accidents caused by rolling stops and failing to stop. When cameras are installed, compliance rates increase significantly. I remember what happened in Columbus when the cameras first went in-people actually started stopping. If anything, they're a visible deterrent. Better to have a rear-end accident than just about any other type because injuries and damage are typically minimized.

Speed cameras are a no except in extreme situations. Such a situation is school zones during arrival/dismissal hours when children may be darting into the street. I don't think they have a place on limited-access highways or anything outside of a residential neighborhood because situations may dictate going faster than the speed limit due to safety or obstruction avoidance. In New York, speed cameras cannot issue tickets outside of school zones and I hope it stays that way.

To add something about unmarked police cars in general, they have a way of making perfectly legitimate police activities appear to be highly suspicious. One day I was walking through Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx, and I saw this black sedan pull off of the street and start driving towards me down the pedestrian walkway. It was a Town Car or something like that, and looked exactly like the sort of vehicle you'd expect mobsters to be disposing a body with. Of course they were driving slowly through the park, but instead of seeming to be out of caution, it just appeared sinister and purposeless–and it didn't help that the two guys inside were dressed in dark clothes with sunglasses. It was pretty much the least legitimate-looking activity I'd ever seen in the city, and I was this close to calling the "if you see something, say something" hotline when I finally spotted something, the license plate maybe, that told me they were some kind of law enforcement. To be perfectly honest, to this day I'm not certain...

So yeah, I'd say unmarked vehicles are best saved for when the situation calls for not calling attention to oneself. If you're going to pull over a motorist, or wander aimlessly through a crowded urban park, it's probably better to do it in a marked car.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 09:37:32 PM
I have a license-plate cover that smears the image so the camera can't read it. Problem is, it works too well: It also makes your plate illegible to other drivers. It's not on any of the cars because I got pulled over by a Virginia state trooper, although instead of giving me a ticket he handed me a socket wrench and told me to remove it while he watched. I was going to remove it anyway because we were driving to Montreal a few weeks later and I didn't think it'd be a good idea to have that thing on the car at the border! I've never bothered to put it back on the car.

I believe any type of plate cover is illegal in Maryland as well (may be related to all-electronic toll roads like Md. 200 and the I-95 ETLs) and their practice is similar to that of Virginia troopers - remove it or get a summons.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 11:06:30 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 09:37:32 PM
I have a license-plate cover that smears the image so the camera can't read it. Problem is, it works too well: It also makes your plate illegible to other drivers. It's not on any of the cars because I got pulled over by a Virginia state trooper, although instead of giving me a ticket he handed me a socket wrench and told me to remove it while he watched. I was going to remove it anyway because we were driving to Montreal a few weeks later and I didn't think it'd be a good idea to have that thing on the car at the border! I've never bothered to put it back on the car.

I believe any type of plate cover is illegal in Maryland as well (may be related to all-electronic toll roads like Md. 200 and the I-95 ETLs) and their practice is similar to that of Virginia troopers - remove it or get a summons.

They're illegal in most states. In most of New York, they won't pull you over for that alone, but they'll tack it onto other things or use it as an excuse to pull you over if you appear to be doing something dangerous or suspicious.

Quote from: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 05:57:06 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 11:06:30 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 09:37:32 PM
I have a license-plate cover that smears the image so the camera can't read it. Problem is, it works too well: It also makes your plate illegible to other drivers. It's not on any of the cars because I got pulled over by a Virginia state trooper, although instead of giving me a ticket he handed me a socket wrench and told me to remove it while he watched. I was going to remove it anyway because we were driving to Montreal a few weeks later and I didn't think it'd be a good idea to have that thing on the car at the border! I've never bothered to put it back on the car.

I believe any type of plate cover is illegal in Maryland as well (may be related to all-electronic toll roads like Md. 200 and the I-95 ETLs) and their practice is similar to that of Virginia troopers - remove it or get a summons.

They're illegal in most states. In most of New York, they won't pull you over for that alone, but they'll tack it onto other things or use it as an excuse to pull you over if you appear to be doing something dangerous or suspicious.

For the most part license plate covers have been always been illegal...at least for the past several decades, well before any sort of electronic anything was in general use.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 02:58:10 PM
Connecticut might not agree with you.  Nearly every Connecticut trooper car is unmarked.

Unmarked Connecticut State Police vehicles have recognizable license plate numbers, at least. 

One criterion I'd impose on the acceptability of unmarked vehicle speed traps and photo speed enforcement is that the speed limits being enforced be those imposed/justified by engineering studies, rather than by statute or local whim.  If you have a road that is safe to drive at 75, but the speed limit is 65, 55, 45, etc. due to state or local whim, photo enforcement and stealthy speed traps both feel like entrapment to me.

Quote from: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 05:57:06 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 11:06:30 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2015, 09:37:32 PM
I have a license-plate cover that smears the image so the camera can't read it. Problem is, it works too well: It also makes your plate illegible to other drivers. It's not on any of the cars because I got pulled over by a Virginia state trooper, although instead of giving me a ticket he handed me a socket wrench and told me to remove it while he watched. I was going to remove it anyway because we were driving to Montreal a few weeks later and I didn't think it'd be a good idea to have that thing on the car at the border! I've never bothered to put it back on the car.

I believe any type of plate cover is illegal in Maryland as well (may be related to all-electronic toll roads like Md. 200 and the I-95 ETLs) and their practice is similar to that of Virginia troopers - remove it or get a summons.

They're illegal in most states. In most of New York, they won't pull you over for that alone, but they'll tack it onto other things or use it as an excuse to pull you over if you appear to be doing something dangerous or suspicious.

In Virginia, the rule is that any plate cover that changes the plate's appearance is prohibited. So you could have a clear plastic one and not necessarily run afoul of the rule. I know the rule, of course, but I played dumb and it paid off. I've seen all sorts of dark tinted plate covers and I wonder how many tickets those people get.

Friend of mine has a crown vic, i let him take my car for a test drive, to double check some repairs, i was following behind him in the vic. We had the walkie talkie FRS radios. "hey, is it weird seeing your own headlights?" him "yeah, makes me want to drive legal, just seeing the nose of a crown vic"

The crown victoria no matter what will look like a cop car, even if you paint it in wild colors. The lights on the nose are very recgonizable.

It's not just the crown vic either - Tahoes and Chargers also cause me to slow down because as of late the unmarked police cars in New Jersey are getting a lot harder to spot.

I have no problem with unmarked squads. Really, the markings only make a difference to those passing by - when you're pulled over, unless they have hood/front markings, you're not going to see them anyway. Around here, most of the unmarked have push-bars mounted on the front end, so they're still fairly easy to pick out from a standard sedan. LEDs also make legit ones easier to spot, as they're typically lit up like a Christmas tree.

It's the cameras I have issues with. Luckily, they're illegal in Wisconsin. While red light cameras do usually reduce the number of red-light violators, there also tends to be an increase in rear-end collisions. As mentioned by others, they also tend to be used more as a revenue stream cloaked as a safety improvement. I don't have much issue with speed cameras other than I just find them creepy. I'm not a member of the tinfoil hat club, but there's just something about the being used that makes me feel uneasy. I also enjoy Sheldon's logic on traffic camera usage:

Quote from: Sheldon CooperLike a milking stool, my case rests on three legs. I will demonstrate that I was improperly instructed in driving by a woman whose lack of respect for society borders on the sociopathic. I will argue that the emergency met the legal doctrine of quod est necessarium est licitum, that which is necessary is legal. But first, I will raise a Sixth Amendment issue. I'm unable to confront my accuser, a non-human entity, to wit, a camera. So, to sum up, improper instruction, quod est necessarium est licitum, Sixth Amendment. My milk stool is complete.

I just drove to Tysons Corner via the I-495 HO/T lanes and I thought of a possible use for cameras to which I wouldn't object: Enforcing things like no-truck restrictions. Vehicles of more than two axles, except buses, are prohibited in those lanes, but I saw four, one of whom who had been pulled over. Camera enforcement seems like it'd be a good way to deal with this particular sort of issue.

I do NOT like the idea of using things like infrared cameras to enforce HOV rules, however, because I can easily the car's exhaust system throwing off more heat than kids in the rear seat or the like.

In Kentucky, state police detectives generally drive unmarked Crown Vics. They don't have official plates, either. Most have regular-issue Franklin County plates. And the detectives don't wear uniforms, they usually wear coats and ties.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 01:15:26 PM
I do NOT like the idea of using things like infrared cameras to enforce HOV rules, however, because I can easily the car's exhaust system throwing off more heat than kids in the rear seat or the like.

That idea was from someone who wrote into the Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock column, complaining that he got pulled over for an HOV violation because the cop couldn't initially see his two kids in the rear seat, behind tinted windows. The cop did quickly let him go after stopping him and taking a closer look in the back.

I agree infrared cameras are a less than ideal solution to this problem. Heated mannequins, anyone?

Quote from: oscar on August 11, 2015, 04:24:17 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 01:15:26 PM
I do NOT like the idea of using things like infrared cameras to enforce HOV rules, however, because I can easily the car's exhaust system throwing off more heat than kids in the rear seat or the like.

That idea was from someone who wrote into the Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock column, complaining that he got pulled over for an HOV violation because the cop couldn't initially see his two kids in the rear seat, behind tinted windows. The cop did quickly let him go after stopping him and taking a closer look in the back.

I agree infrared cameras are a less than ideal solution to this problem. Heated mannequins, anyone?

I've heard the suggestion kicked around for years long before that column ran, though certainly it was in the back of my mind when I noted it here.

I'm thinking that speed enforcement should be secondary enforcement only at speeds that are not considered reckless.  This way, the police are forced to actually enforce more traffic laws.  If speed limits went away, they could equal the revenue they currently bring in on speeding tickets by pulling people over for tailgating instead, because so many people do it - be it due to ignorance or whatever.

And there should be a federal law stating that reckless speed must be a fixed amount over the speed limit, not a fixed speed regardless of the speed limit.  I'm glaring at you, Virginia.

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 15, 2015, 12:55:11 PM

And there should be a federal law stating that reckless speed must be a fixed amount over the speed limit, not a fixed speed regardless of the speed limit.  I'm glaring at you, Virginia.

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 15, 2015, 03:57:17 PM

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 15, 2015, 12:55:11 PM

And there should be a federal law stating that reckless speed must be a fixed amount over the speed limit, not a fixed speed regardless of the speed limit.  I'm glaring at you, Virginia.

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

How i had it explained to me, VA: 20 mph over or 80 mph. Do 81 in a 70, you get wreckless driving. do 70 in a 55, you don't. what one is less safe?

Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 15, 2015, 03:57:17 PMThere is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to believe it is exempt from some parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

One thing Virginia is notorious for is enforcing its own vehicle code on all vehicles, whether registered in-state or not.  They will ticket you and try to make you remove things that are legal in the state your car is registered in, but illegal in Virginia.  Tint is the most common target.  This has been said to be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and Virginia has acknowledged that, and basically said "we don't care, we do what we want"

In NC its 15 over the limit or 80mph which ever is less. It's not necessarily Careless and Reckless, its a separate offense all of its own.

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 15, 2015, 04:10:56 PM

Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 15, 2015, 03:57:17 PMThere is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to believe it is exempt from some parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

One thing Virginia is notorious for is enforcing its own vehicle code on all vehicles, whether registered in-state or not.  They will ticket you and try to make you remove things that are legal in the state your car is registered in, but illegal in Virginia.  Tint is the most common target.  This has been said to be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and Virginia has acknowledged that, and basically said "we don't care, we do what we want"

I believe the way the tint law is written is that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on any road in the Commonwealth if the tint is darker than the statute provides unless you have a medical waiver. Their argument is that it's been decided it's unsafe to drive with darker tint than that and thus it doesn't matter where you reside–unsafe is unsafe.

I don't know whether there have been any reported court opinions about it. It seems like the US Supreme Court's logic in the Bibb case involving the old Illinois truck mud flap law could apply, but there is one very important difference: In the mud flap case, Illinois's law flat-out conflicted with at least one other state's. It was impossible to comply with both unless the truck driver pulled off to change his mud flaps. That's not the case with tint: Even if your state allows darker tint than Virginia does, you can still easily ensure you won't get a ticket in Virginia by installing tint that complies with the Virginia law, regardless of what your state allows. I don't know whether this would be the deciding aspect if someone challenged the Virginia law, but it's definitely not something you can just pooh-pooh. The better strategy for an out-of-stater is to avoid doing something that would cause a cop to stop you. Most cops in Virginia will not stop an out-of-stater solely to write a tint ticket, but of course there are always some exceptions.

(Note I'm not defending the Virginia law. I've never tinted any of my windows in part because the max tint allowed is darker on the back side windows–35%–than on the front side windows–50%–and I think the "two-tone" look looks stupid and I don't feel it's worth getting 50% tint.)

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2015, 04:38:43 PM

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 15, 2015, 04:10:56 PM

Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 15, 2015, 03:57:17 PMThere is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to believe it is exempt from some parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

One thing Virginia is notorious for is enforcing its own vehicle code on all vehicles, whether registered in-state or not.  They will ticket you and try to make you remove things that are legal in the state your car is registered in, but illegal in Virginia.  Tint is the most common target.  This has been said to be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and Virginia has acknowledged that, and basically said "we don't care, we do what we want"

I believe the way the tint law is written is that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on any road in the Commonwealth if the tint is darker than the statute provides unless you have a medical waiver. Their argument is that it's been decided it's unsafe to drive with darker tint than that and thus it doesn't matter where you reside–unsafe is unsafe.

I don't know whether there have been any reported court opinions about it. It seems like the US Supreme Court's logic in the Bibb case involving the old Illinois truck mud flap law could apply, but there is one very important difference: In the mud flap case, Illinois's law flat-out conflicted with at least one other state's. It was impossible to comply with both unless the truck driver pulled off to change his mud flaps. That's not the case with tint: Even if your state allows darker tint than Virginia does, you can still easily ensure you won't get a ticket in Virginia by installing tint that complies with the Virginia law, regardless of what your state allows. I don't know whether this would be the deciding aspect if someone challenged the Virginia law, but it's definitely not something you can just pooh-pooh. The better strategy for an out-of-stater is to avoid doing something that would cause a cop to stop you. Most cops in Virginia will not stop an out-of-stater solely to write a tint ticket, but of course there are always some exceptions.

(Note I'm not defending the Virginia law. I've never tinted any of my windows in part because the max tint allowed is darker on the back side windows–35%–than on the front side windows–50%–and I think the "two-tone" look looks stupid and I don't feel it's worth getting 50% tint.)

New York's tint law is similar. Excessive tints are forbidden regardless of registration location.

I don't like unmarked vehicles being used for traffic enforcement not only because of the risks of "how do you know it's actually a cop", but also because it violates the basic premise that the purpose of traffic enforcement is safety. Unmarked vehicles turn it from an honest "listen, we're watching, so behave" into a sneak attack designed to issue as many tickets as possible for the purpose of revenue enhancement. The stealth is unnecessary and uncalled for.

As for cameras, they have the same problem in most real world applications in the US because they are similarly designed with stealth in mind in order to catch as many unsuspecting drivers as possible. But if there is a prominently visible sign warning of the location of a camera in advance, then I'm more okay with it since it maintains the integrity of predominantly increasing safety rather than predominantly increasing revenue.

Of course, I'd also tend to agree that speed enforcement in general is overdone because it's easy to be lazy about. Point a radar gun at traffic and wait for someone to trip it above a certain level. Hell, the fact that the process can easily be automated demonstrates how easy it is. It would be nice if the highway patrol actually put more brains into their enforcement. Or, y'know, focused on helping disabled vehicles and responding to emergencies more than harassing drivers who aren't really hurting anyone.

There's a lot of negative attitudes towards police lately and excessive traffic enforcement just feeds it. If I see a police car and feel threatened (because they might pull me over) rather than protected... well, they have a major PR problem.

What makes unmarked cars a little more troublesome is now the cops drive damn near anything. Used to be every cop car was a Crown Vic, Dodge Diplomat or Caprice and if they were unmarked you still kind of knew what was up. Sure you'd see a few Mustangs or Z28s put there used for very specific purposes and certainly not in every state. Ohio never had those two cars except as D.A.R.E. cars.

Now you see 'em in Chargers, Chevy PPVs, Ford Tauri Turbos, all manner of SUVs and crossovers (Edges, Escapes, Suburbans), even F-250s in the case of Sheriff's departments. I feel it's sneakier. One of the main flaws I feel of the American policing system is the constant sneaking up on everyone instead of being highly visible in neon yellow cars and uniforms like in more peaceful nations.

Quote from: GCrites80s on August 17, 2015, 11:49:27 AM
What makes unmarked cars a little more troublesome is now the cops drive damn near anything. Used to be every cop car was a Crown Vic, Dodge Diplomat or Caprice and if they were unmarked you still kind of knew what was up. Sure you'd see a few Mustangs or Z28s put there used for very specific purposes and certainly not in every state. Ohio never had those two cars except as D.A.R.E. cars.

Now you see 'em in Chargers, Chevy PPVs, Ford Tauri Turbos, all manner of SUVs and crossovers (Edges, Escapes, Suburbans), even F-250s in the case of Sheriff's departments. I feel it's sneakier. One of the main flaws I feel of the American policing system is the constant sneaking up on everyone instead of being highly visible in neon yellow cars and uniforms like in more peaceful nations.

Chargers and Tauruses are the most common sedans and, as a result, I treat those in white, gray, navy blue, or black as cop cars. Around here, at least, SUVs are typically marked. Many New York police agencies also have a very noticeable reflective stripe on the sides that makes them stand out.

Quote from: cl94 on August 17, 2015, 12:38:10 PM
Chargers and Tauruses are the most common sedans and, as a result, I treat those in white, gray, navy blue, or black as cop cars. Around here, at least, SUVs are typically marked. Many New York police agencies also have a very noticeable reflective stripe on the sides that makes them stand out.

Maryland still has a fair number of Crown Vics in service (marked and unmarked).

They also have some Dodge Chargers, Chevy Tahoe and Suburbans, Jeep Libertys and, more-commonly, [LHD] Holden Caprice sedans (badged as Chevys).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2015, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: cl94 on August 17, 2015, 12:38:10 PM
Chargers and Tauruses are the most common sedans and, as a result, I treat those in white, gray, navy blue, or black as cop cars. Around here, at least, SUVs are typically marked. Many New York police agencies also have a very noticeable reflective stripe on the sides that makes them stand out.

Maryland still has a fair number of Crown Vics in service (marked and unmarked).

They also have some Dodge Chargers, Chevy Tahoe and Suburbans, Jeep Libertys and, more-commonly, [LHD] Holden Caprice sedans (badged as Chevys).

Bunch of Crown Vics in New York as well, with many agencies still using them. Almost every local agency has Chargers and Tauruses as their new cars. SUVs are typically Tahoes and Explorers. Buffalo PD has only bought Tahoes (no cars) in recent years for the 4WD capability in the snow and Town of Tonawanda uses Caprices. NYPD has a bunch of Priuses for traffic details, while parks police has F-series pickups. State Troopers have Ford and Dodge cars along with Ford and Chevy SUVs.

Pennsylvania's cop cars are always marked. I don't have to worry there, because I hate unmarked police. Red light cameras aren't making people safer and thus should take the wrecking ball.

Connecticut state troopers have always been unmarked, or at least as long as I can recall. I've always been a bit wary when I see a new(-ish) Chevy or Ford come up behind us. Another disturbing trend here: Red light cameras have been on the increase.

Quote from: GCrites80s on August 17, 2015, 11:49:27 AM
What makes unmarked cars a little more troublesome is now the cops drive damn near anything. Used to be every cop car was a Crown Vic, Dodge Diplomat or Caprice and if they were unmarked you still kind of knew what was up. Sure you'd see a few Mustangs or Z28s put there used for very specific purposes and certainly not in every state. Ohio never had those two cars except as D.A.R.E. cars.

Simply put, nearly every bare-bones full-size sedan (including 2-door models, such did exist through 1982) on the market had a Police-Packaged version of such.  During the mid-60s & 70s, even mid-size and even compacts (70s-era Chevy Novas) offered Police-Packaged models.

Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s (when it still looked like a Jeep CJ copy); although it was a Police-Packaged offering, it was not pursuit-rated. Ford called such a package a Special Service Pacakge and these vehicles were used by police for non-pursuit-related duties.

The first "Pony" cars used for Police duties was actually the '71 AMC Javelin.  Arkansas State Police had some marked Javelins in their fleet.  Not sure if such was an official Police Package or just a retail model the police just bought.  Police-Packaged Camaros and Mustangs made the scene in the late 70s/early 80s respectively due to the dimished performance (due to the loss of big-block engines due to downsizing & fuel economy laws that were then newly-enacted).

While police-packaged vehicles varied somewhat even back then; the most common vehicles used were still the larger sedans (mainly due to price and utility).

Quote from: GCrites80s on August 17, 2015, 11:49:27 AM
Now you see 'em in Chargers, Chevy PPVs, Ford Tauri Turbos, all manner of SUVs and crossovers (Edges, Escapes, Suburbans), even F-250s in the case of Sheriff's departments

The first 3 vehicles you listed are essentially modern versions of what cops used in the past (i.e. a full-size sedan minus the luxury and comfort features but equipped with the largest & most powerful available engines).  Also, the Caprice PPV is a vehicle that's only sold to law enforcement agencies; there's no retail counterpart available for sale.  If one sees a Caprice PPV on the road (marked or unmarked); it's more likely than not, a police vehicle.  They're still too new to be decommissioned and the similar-engineered Chevy SS sedan is smaller than the Caprice PPV.  Granted, all the current models are narrower than the old-school Crown Vic. Police Interceptor (aka CVPI or P71) and its predecessors, and yes the Taurus-based Police Interceptor (side bar: the Taurus name does not appear anywhere on this model) is FWD-based (even when equipped w/AWD); but they're still considered to be credible candidates for Police-Packaged sedans.

While I've seen Explorers in police use (note: prior to 2011, the Explorer offered to police was a Special Service Package and not a pursuit-rated package); I don't believe I've seen Edges or Escapes used for such.  The Tahoe PPV and current Explorer-based Utility Interceptor (there's no Explorer badge anywhere on this model either) have become popular with police agencies largely because they're actually roomier (including shoulder and hip room) and have more cargo space than today's full-size sedans. 

Right after production of the CVPI was discontinued; the California Highway Patrol (CHP) beefed up their minimum payload standards in their Enforcement Class vehicles specs so that only pursuit-rated, police-packaged SUVs would be considered in the bidding process.  Their reasoning for doing such was clear; they're not moving down to smaller vehicles.

In the past I've seen some single-cab Ford F-250s in Police colors (including one in Mass State Police livery); but again, those aren't used for pursuit duties.  Using them for such would void the warranties. 

OTOH, what I have seen is more F-150-sized trucks being used for patrol duties.  About a week or two ago, I saw a fully-marked Ram 1500 crew-cab in Ridley Township (Delaware County, PA) Police colors (Ridley Police vehicles are all-red) that pulled over a motorist along MacDade Blvd.

NYPD actually had a bunch of Nissan Altima Hybrids in their fleet (not sure if they still do); no doubt for experimental purposes.

What you're actually seeing today is police agencies trying out other types of vehicles in the wake of the CVPI's passing.  Such was not unlike (mostly) state police agencies trying out Mustangs and Camaros some 30 to 35 years ago when they really needed acceleration (it would take some 10 to 15 years for full-size sedans' performance levels to improve).  The only difference today, is that the vehicle of choice for cops (especially state troopers) may no longer be a sedan. 

If one knows which vehicles have genuine police packages and which do not; spotting an unmarked model used for partol duties gets a little bit easier.

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 07:14:22 PM
...Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s...

I can't see Ford Bronco without thinking of OJ Simpson

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 17, 2015, 06:48:17 PM
Connecticut state troopers have always been unmarked, or at least as long as I can recall.

But they still have the most obvious distinguishing feature of a cop car: light bars on top. I wouldn't even count them as unmarked, the light bar is more of a marking than any paint design.

A truly unmarked cop car has all of its flashing lights mounted internally so that at a quick glance the car is indistinguishable from any other.

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 17, 2015, 06:48:17 PM
Another disturbing trend here: Red light cameras have been on the increase.

Since when does Connecticut have red light cameras? Last I checked the state had no statute permitting photo enforcement.

Quote from: cl94 on August 18, 2015, 08:14:10 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 07:14:22 PM
...Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s...

I can't see Ford Bronco without thinking of OJ Simpson

I believe Ford offered a Special Service Packaged Bronco to law enforcement agencies before OJ was doing Hertz commercials never mind the infamous low-speed chase of 1994.

Side bar: according to one Motor Trend article covering the then-new 1996 models, they commented that 1994-1995 Ford Bronco sales had an uptick.  They half-jokingly commented that many of those Broncos sold were white.

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2015, 08:34:46 AM

Quote from: cl94 on August 18, 2015, 08:14:10 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 07:14:22 PM
...Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s...

I can't see Ford Bronco without thinking of OJ Simpson

I believe Ford offered a Special Service Packaged Bronco to law enforcement agencies before OJ was doing Hertz commercials never mind the infamous low-speed chase of 1994.

Side bar: according to one Motor Trend article covering the then-new 1996 models, they commented that 1994-1995 Ford Bronco sales had an uptick.  They half-joikingly commented that many of those Broncos sold were white.

"OJ, people love you"
"Mooooooooan"
"OJ, don't shoot"
"Moooooooooooooooooan"

"Police package" cars and SUVs are, of course, 100% about cop egos.   Yeah, police cars need a few modifications, mostly related to electrical service load, and need industrial level interiors (which many fleet models will also need), but the idea that cops are going to have to out NASCAR somebody is rediculious.

BTW, the reason that Ford, and some others, do not put the model names on some of their police cars has to do with the EPA.  The EPA runs its gas mileage tests on multiple cars of each model, each equiped differently and then ads them together, both for the (idiotic, but that another story)  CAFE law and the stickers they put on the cars.  These are averages based on sales from the last year.  So many % of that model had AC, then you use the AC car's lower numbers so many times, and so on.  By entering a cop Taurus as an "Interceptor" its fuel inefficient make up does not pull down the regular Taurus' and, because it is unavailable to the public, is not a part of CAFE at all.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 19, 2015, 11:34:01 AM
"Police package" cars and SUVs are, of course, 100% about cop egos.   Yeah, police cars need a few modifications, mostly related to electrical service load, and need industrial level interiors (which many fleet models will also need), but the idea that cops are going to have to out NASCAR somebody is rediculious.

FWIW, read any of the Corporal Ed Sanow publications regarding Police vehicles and their history; such is where I obtained a fair amount of information regarding cop vehicles... particularly the histories.

There is indeed a distinction between a pursuit-rated Police-Package vs. a non-pursuit-rated Special Service Package and using the latter (along with standard retail models) for pursuit duties voids the vehicle warranties.  So its more of a warranty-usage related/legal issue rather than police ego.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 19, 2015, 11:34:01 AM
BTW, the reason that Ford, and some others, do not put the model names on some of their police cars has to do with the EPA.

Yes and no.  To my knowledge, only the current Ford Police-Packaged vehicles are stripped of their retail/non-police counterparts' nameplates.  Ford has done such since 1999 when the CVPI adopted its own honeycomb grille-style (vs. the chromed horizontal eggcrate grille on the other Crown Vic models).  A POLICE INTERCEPTOR badge on the rear trunklid is placed where the CROWN VICTORIA badge was on the retail and non-police fleet (taxicab packages for example) models.

OTOH, Ford's Special Service Packaged vehicles offered to law enforcement agencies (Explorer from 2010 and earlier) and the Expedition (to this day) are badged the same way as their retail bretheren.

To the best of my knowledge, all the other Police-Packaged vehicles from Chevy & Dodge have the same nameplate badging as their retail counterparts (Chevy's Caprice PPV has no retail counterpart).  I'm not 100% whether Chevy includes or does not include the PPV suffix in its badging of Police vehicles.

Ford's reasoning to mildly distinguish its CVPI (P71 Package) from its other Crown Vics is not completely known; sales tabulations of all Crown Vics & CVPIs are usually combined and treated as one entity.

When the newer Taurus and Explorer-based Interceptor models rolled out years later; Ford's distinctive badging for those respective models carried its established tradition but elevated such to a new level.  The Police Interceptor (Taurus) and Utility Interceptor (Explorer) are now treated separate from their retail bretheren.  The reasoning for doing such could be very well due to CAFE reasons as you mentioned; while CAFE existed back in 1999, the number (27.5 mpg for cars, 20.7 mpg for truck-based vehicles) wasn't as overbearing and it remained constant for many years. 

However, in the case of the Taurus, Ford's reasoning for not placing Taurus badges on its Police Vehicles point back to the issues many police agencies had with the previous Taurus Police Package when it was offered on its 1990-1995 models (the Taurus was a mid-size back then).  That Taurus Police model left a bad taste & bad memories for many law enforcement agencies.  The Baltimore Police Department practically made a scandal out of the first Taurus Police cars.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 19, 2015, 11:34:01 AM
By entering a cop Taurus as an "Interceptor" its fuel inefficient make up does not pull down the regular Taurus' and, because it is unavailable to the public, is not a part of CAFE at all.

The 2nd part of the above-quoted post is incorrect; all mass-produced vehicles including police vehicles are subject to the same CAFE standards as their retail counterparts.  If it weren't; Ford would've offered the 5.4L V8 as an option for its CVPI; many state police agencies practically begged Ford to offer such but no avail (such would've been hit with a gas-guzzler tax).  Additionally, when these vehicles are retired from police duties (barring the ones KIA); they are sold off as used vehicles to the general public.

One needs to remember that CAFE is fleetwide, so whether Ford treats its Taurus-based Police Interceptor as a completely separate model from its retail counterpart or not due to CAFE reasons ultimately becomes a moot point because sales of all models from Ford (or any other make for that matter) are factored into its CAFE figures for cars and trucks.  Note: trucks over a certain GVWT (it's either 8500 or 10,000 lbs.) are exempt from CAFE laws and do not have to post fuel economy figures on its window stickers.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 19, 2015, 11:34:01 AM
"Police package" cars and SUVs are, of course, 100% about cop egos.   Yeah, police cars need a few modifications, mostly related to electrical service load, and need industrial level interiors (which many fleet models will also need), but the idea that cops are going to have to out NASCAR somebody is rediculious.

The electrical system, suspension and perhaps the engine cooling systems are the things that matter most.  As for the NASCAR angle, I agree with you when it comes to most cities, towns, townships and the like. But for law enforcement agencies in large and spread-out areas (state police and the like, plus rural sheriff offices), they may need to have that higher-power engine. 

Quote from: SP Cook on August 19, 2015, 11:34:01 AM
BTW, the reason that Ford, and some others, do not put the model names on some of their police cars has to do with the EPA.  The EPA runs its gas mileage tests on multiple cars of each model, each equiped differently and then ads them together, both for the (idiotic, but that another story)  CAFE law and the stickers they put on the cars.  These are averages based on sales from the last year.  So many % of that model had AC, then you use the AC car's lower numbers so many times, and so on.  By entering a cop Taurus as an "Interceptor" its fuel inefficient make up does not pull down the regular Taurus' and, because it is unavailable to the public, is not a part of CAFE at all.

Perhaps more-notoriously, there is the recent example of GM importing the Holden Caprice from Australia and re-badging it as the Chevrolet Caprice PPV and not selling it to consumers (though there has been talk of a Holden Caprice being sold as a modern-day Chevrolet SS).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2015, 01:15:05 PMPerhaps more-notoriously, there is the recent example of GM importing the Holden Caprice from Australia and re-badging it as the Chevrolet Caprice PPV and not selling it to consumers (though there has been talk of a Holden Caprice being sold as a modern-day Chevrolet SS).

The Chevy SS model does indeed exist in the retail market today (I mentioned such in the NJ Turnpike thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.975) a while back) but it is not the same exact car as the Caprice PPV.  The SS is basically a Pontiac G8 sedan with a Chevy front whereas the Caprice PPV is a longer car.

Rather than regurgitating the whole Holden/GM history regarding its Australian offerings in the U.S. and the whats and whys (the CAFE standards only played a part of the whole role here), and further veer this thread off course; one can just go to this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.975) on read up on such there.

I dont' even need an unmarked car to run traffic.  I have people that pass me up not even paying attention whilst operating a marked unit.