Handheld radar guns equipped with video cameras.

they'll always find a way to nab you and generate revenue

is these are operated by a police officer who has first-hand knowledge and can testify to the veracity of the images behind the ticket. These probably will not be the same type of violations the camera companies processed, but will escalate into criminal complaints and bench warrants should you fail to respond. Those of you that wanted a ticket issued by a police officer just may get your wish.

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It answers the potential question of when a cop shows a reading on a radar gun. How do we know it was actually from MY car? Now the accompanying video would provide proof. Or in the case of sleazy cops, make it harder to slap a bogus ticket on you.

All that aside, I do not see where GPS technology could be used for this. It's just not that accurate in short bursts like a police officer would use. Does anyone have a link to the actual site that describes the device that they are talking about?

The GPS is used to record the exact location at the time of the incident.

http://www.lasertech.com/TruCAM-Laser-Speed-Gun.aspx

I agree!

The legality of filming a traffic stop is still at issue. I think that this should be as well then.

I got tagged last year and the cop explained that he couldn't write a warning, as the 10 person team of the speed trap at Gary & North Ave in Speed Trap Carol Stream, IL has each violation on video from the lidar. I've added my own speed camera POI to the speed camera files to remind myself to save the $150 next time. 6 lane highway at 45mph and cars are flying. On my Harley, I think the speed differential of being in the minority doing 45 is dangerous.

The quoted police department person made it sound like it was using GPS to calculate the speed. Or at least that was how I read it. This technology makes sense. As I said before, it makes it almost impossible for a sleazy officer to just SAY he got a reading of xx on your car. This would provide proof of when and where he was at the the time and clearly identify the vehicle the reading was taken from.

Twice in my life, I have had an officer just plain outright lie when witing a ticket. I have no problem with technology that accurately determines that I was indeed breaking the law and speeding. That same technology offers some protection from the very few officers who abuse their position and profession.

Hiding in the bushes with a radar gun regardless of the technology used is a all about revenue over duty. If the aim was to serve and protect, the police would be patrolling the highways looking for the dangerous drivers and motorists in need of assistance.

Hiding in the bushes with a radar gun regardless of the technology used is a all about revenue over duty. If the aim was to serve and protect, the police would be patrolling the highways looking for the dangerous drivers and motorists in need of assistance.

Couple of questions come to mind.

If police are "serve and protect" and red light cameras are outlawed as some hope, what kind of mayhem could we expect at intersections once people realize there are no rules?

Would you not consider that drivers blowing through red-lights are dangerous?

Should they be out in the open? Would that solve your problem? It would sound like they ARE patrolling looking for "dangerous drivers." How many "dangerous drivers" drive dangerously when they can see a police officer? Unmarked cars and motor officers who can see you but you can't see them are more effective for catching the habitual violators who are on their best behavior when johnny law is around but throw caution out the window when they think no one is looking.

I am no fan of tickets as most are not, however. If I am going to be ticketed for something I much rather a live person do it than a camera. I feel at that point I have partially gotten my money's worht out of the offense

Supporting somebody's job and possibly there family. That person took the time to learn there craft, years of putting up with crap attitudes from an unappreciative public for the service they do provide. Etc...

I can get onboard with that a whole lot easier than just supporting the top of the food chain in my community with pure revenue and some out of state camera company who is most likely buying those cameras from China.

Call me old fashioned but I like to be kissed first, if you know what I mean. And the human interaction between officer and driver afford that opportunity.

I agree I would like the cop writing the ticket with video proof over a cop weaving through traffic to say he got you when you are going the speed limit and others are passing you as what happened to my Fiance

Soon you won't be able to get away with anything!
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/super-traffic-camera-arriv...
Mark

I have no problem at all with unmarked cars. It's the lazy hide behind the bush/abutment/sign with a radar gun style of police work I'm against. IMHO, that's revenue enrichment not police work. It's also true that attentive drivers tend to slow down when they see a patrol car. The idiots that are on the cell phone and/or paying no attention to the the traffic around them don't. They don't even notice a patrol car as they tailgate it. Those are by far and away the most dangerous people on the road and they aren't necessarily speeding. It's a fallacy that "speed kills", it's BAD DRIVERS KILL. If the job of the police is truly to serve and protect, they should be paroling, not hiding behind a bush sniping.

Statistically, there is a relationship between speeding and accidents. If "BAD DRIVERS" were not speeding, I suspect that there would be fewer accidents. If we grant you the point that "speed kills" is far too simplistic, I had you will then agree that speed and accidents are statistically linked - and the higher the speed, the more serious the accident that occurs.

here are some links on that subject

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811166.PDF

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/knowledge...

I hope you are not one of those people who typically speed and use the "speed kills" fallacy response to justify their speeding. I think one of the purposes of the 'speed kills" statement is the fact that the higher the speed, the more likely any ensuing accident will involve a fatality - thus speed kills.

Driving above the speed limit is one of the marks of a "BAD DRIVER" - not the only one.

I agree!!!

Agreed .....

The city of Chicago has a rule that the police may not hide while they are using the RADAR speed guns. That would include being obscured by parked cars on the same street. They still write plenty of citations.

I'll correct that statement to an accurate one: Speed doesn't kill. STUPIDITY at speed kills.

And, that would be at any speed...

How exactly is that lazy? I'm guessing that you find it unfair if the officer hides? Takes away an advantage that you have to spot the officer before he spots you speeding? Saying that the job of a police officer is to "serve and protect" is extremely over-simplistic. Part of their job is to enforce the traffic laws. How they catch you slipping isn't the issue. It's that you were slipping in the first place. I agree with you that inattentive drivers are a huge problem and that you can kill or be killed driving a car at 45 as easily as 85. You need to remember that even "great drivers" are still susceptible to the laws of physics and reaction times. All driving is divided attention tasking and you are never driving out there alone, in the safest car, under the most ideal conditions of weather/roadway, and completely without distraction. Why don't you go on a ride-along with your local or state police traffic enforcement unit and get a professional's view of the realities of traffic enforcement? You might just get an eye opener.

One of my very best friends entire family are NYPD officers and I'm close friends with several Nassau County officers. To clarify, I NEVER said that radar was "unfair" nor did I ever say that speed limits shouldn't be enforced. I will reiterate that the hide and snipe form of speed "enforcement" has NOTHING to do with true enforcement and EVERYTHING to do with revenue enhancement. Hiding a highly trained police officer behind a bush is a piss poor use of that officer and some very expensive equipment. I would classify my friends as good if not great cops and everyone of them has no respect for that type of duty or the officers that tend to gravitate towards performing it. I have no problem with unmarked patrol cars, which are very effective in catching speeders, but infinitely more effective at catching aggressive and inattentive drivers. My police friend also claims that catching speeders in his marked patrol car is ridiculously easy to do. OTH, active patrolling burns fuel and adds wear and tear to the equipment. I've also been told that it is more complicated to get a speeding conviction from a moving vehicle than from a stagnant one. Having officers visible and mobile is far more valuable to society than the additional money that is generated by sniping for tickets. Turning the police force into revenue generators is harmful to society and disrespectful to its officers. Serve and protect is not and should never be simplistic!

I'm not a fan of speed traps!I believe patroling neighborhoods,school property,apartments or any high crime area!I know of an area of apartments that had six break-ins in two weeks and can find radar set up in a number of locations within a half mile!I would rather see a cop drive down my street a couple times a day and around my subdivision than parked in one spot for however long!

This is one of the oft given reasons for Automated Traffic Enforcement. How do you feel about them?

What kind of "mayhem" did we experience before red light cameras?

"no rules" ? In most areas of the USA, going through a red light I believe is still a traffic control violation.

Ron

Ron,
Since I was not clear before, let me rephrase it a bit.

I was responding to someone who felt that police were to "serve and protect" and should not be issuing traffic tickets (I am paraphrasing so apologies to the poster if I have that totally wrong). Then I was adding the condition of red-light camera bring eliminated to the situation were police do not enforce traffic violations but only "serve and protect".

Based on this combination, I asked what kind of mayhem might result.

I am sure you have thought about the fact that red light once were designed to immediately change from red to green just as the perpendicular direction changed from green to red. I remember - in my youth with a 55 ford - watching the perpendicular light turn from green to red and putting the gas pedal down like I was at a drag strip (I now know how stupid this was, but ...)

Then, engineers got smart and decided to implement an "all red" situation - in my town it is a full 2 seconds. This was to let cars that had decided to run the red clear.

I have noticed now that many young (mostly) male driver (a lot in pick-up trucks here) are going through the red light even after my direction has turned green. They are up to 3 or 4 seconds after their light turned red before they entered the intrersection.

My point was this - how long would it be before certain people decided to "kick it up a notch" in trying to beat the light?

And a good point it is!

For the past 30 or so years I've noticed less folks using their turn signals when they should be. I think it's due to a lessening of enforcement and people will try to get away with as much as they can. Just my 2 cents.

Ron

For the past 30 or so years I've noticed less folks using their turn signals when they should be.

Ron[/quote]

And here I was thinking they only put turn signals in the cars that I bought!

Maybe it's a regional thing?

Years ago I was riding around with a local in the U.P. of Michigan. I correctly used my turn signal and he told me that's how folks can tell, "I'm not from around here".

Ron

That being the biggest problem.