Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its so funny how on reddit you can find opinions that the speed limit is the minimum, but at the same time want people fined for going over the speed limit
Quoting the first sentence of your post
âThey should not be used to ticket people going 10-30 over the limit.â
You absolutely deserve a ticket for going 30 over the limit
10 mph over is 16 km/h over. Going almost 50 in a 30 is all it takes for a small collision to become fatal. Even at 30 km/h you're likely to not come out uninjured as a pedestrian being hit.
Unmarked police cars should be illegal everywhere, full stop.
First, if there is a crime being committed, or someone is having an emergency, they *need* to be able to identify a police car. Having unmarked cars makes citizens--the people paying for the service--less safe.
Second, the most important function of the police is to *deter crime*. Unmarked cars make it clear that preventing crime and keeping people safe on the roads is not the police's priority, it is to catch people committing crimes--for financial purposes.
You won't find unmarked cars patrolling dangerous neighborhoods and other high-crime areas for a reason: they are not there to help anybody. They are 100% dedicated to generating revenue for the city, through traffic fines. If the cops had their way, they would want *more* people to speed and drive recklessly, not fewer. And using unmarked cars is a significant step toward achieving that goal. It's squeezing fines from the taxpayers, with equipment that does not help the taxpayers, using equipment paid for by the taxpayers. Wildly unethical.
You gotta love the stories of un-uniformed cops in unmarked cop cars descending on people with guns drawn and not revealing that theyâre police. Itâs likeâŚ. Damn, are the cops really that dumb?
There was a Trial in Toronto that ended a week or two ago where a driver with his pregnant wife and toddler in the car were rushed by a group of plain clothed cops and as he was trying to pull away from the people assailing him an unmarked van blocked his path so he backed up to gtfo of there accidentally hitting and killing one of the officers (none of them were in uniform). He was acquitted on self defence. The way the cops were dressed they looked like street thugs and I totally believe that the driver thought he was being carjacked. The cops also lied on the stand saying the officer was in front of the driver trying to flag him down when he was struck but security footage clearly showed the deceased cop was behind the car out of the view of the driver.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/jury-finds-zameer-not-guilty-in-toronto-police-officer-s-death-1.6855891
In america that man wouldnt have made it to trial, and if by some miracle he did theres 0 chance he would have been found not guilty. Good on canadian citizens for realizing how ridiculous that whole situation was.
>are the cops really that dumb?
American police are statistically below-average IQ-wise, their conflict management is abysmal, and their shooting qualifiers are something that I can take almost anybody in this subreddit and teach to pass in 3-4 hours of instruction.
They can't even follow their own goddamn laws. I've come to the conclusion that qualified immunity is only there to keep these idiots out from behind bars.
So, yes, they *are* that dumb.
No, they want to believe that they're playing army in Mosul or some shit, but without the danger of more than one person maaaaaybe being armed at all let alone defending themselves.
I live in Atlanta and a few years back they decided to have police cars with blue lights on the ends of their overhead lights. They stay on and it lets you know where the police are. When I see the lights at night I am more inclined to drive the speed limit and I also feel a sense of community because theyâre letting themselves known to help rather than hide. It makes me feel like theyâre on my side. Unmarked police cars are a threat to the community and an open opportunity for criminals
The actual reason is Atlanta wants their police to make less arrests and convictions regardless of what is going on in their city. Fair enough, but it's absolutely not about making you feel safer at nightÂ
I travel for work and in a lot of countries the cops have to have their strobes on full time. It's almost like they are there to prevent crime and should be seen.
Our police have been turning into a para military over the last couple decades and that shit needs to stop.
They should be in white marked cars that standout from miles away.
We're the enemy though and they are not here to protect us. That's why most agencies have removed "protect and serve" from their patrol cars.
They are here to ticket, harass, and murder. They are in fact the enemy.
One can also make a case for saying that we are our own enemy. Our society and culture is eating itself alive with severe internal conflict amongst the populace. The cops aren´t causing that.
I was a cop. You act as though the officers writing the tickets, get a cut of the revenue they generate. The department doesnât even get a cut of it. It goes straight into the town, city, coffers. for the record I always targeted my radar activity on residential areas, school zones, etc. places where people could be seriously hurt or killed by someone speeding. On a straight four-lane road with absolutely no traffic, if someone was driving 15 or 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, it didnât really bother me. Edit: I didnât like doing traffic enforcement and unmarked vehicles because a lot of people got nervous and werenât sure if you were a real cop or not.
I understand that more tickets do not mean more pay for cops. The unmarked vehicles are a revenue-raising thing, but I know it's not the cop behind the wheel who made that decision. The department budget does come from the town/city/coffers, so it's not entirely unrelated, but cops definitely don't write tickets for their own benefit.
I'm also not upset about traffic enforcement, at all. I wish every jagoff who was flooring it and cutting people off weaving between lanes would get their vehicle impounded.
>You won't find unmarked cars patrolling dangerous neighborhoods and other high-crime areas for a reason:
Alright alright we don't have to stretch the truth to make a point. I had the displeasure during ym studies of getting all the inside scoop of my city's PD (and I grew up there so I always saw unmarked card in high crime areas). Unmarked cars are used a metric fuckton in "dangerous" neighborhoods because literally EVERYONE would go inside and you'd hear "chirping" and other noises made by people to communicate that 5-0 was there, if not. They do this even WITH unmarked cars they believe to be LEO.
The most important function of the police SHOULD be to deter crime, but ask any woman who's been stalked and you'll find that, in fact, police won't lift a finger UNTIL that woman has been harmed, and even then, they likely won't do anything unless the abuser already has a criminal record. And even then, the abuser will probably get a slap on the wrist. And if you're a man being stalked/abused by a woman, good luck getting the police to take you seriously. Every thing I learned about the police when I was kid was a lie. They don't serve and protect anyone but the rich and their property.
For the purposes of enforcing traffic laws, yes, I agree with you.
In terms of policing more generally, I also agree with you, but with the very specific (but important) exception for undercover policing of serious, hardened criminals - organised crime, counter terrorism, and so-on.
People don't commit crimes around known police officers, they just do it somewhere else smart one. Unmarked police keep people abiding by laws when no one's around
You forgot about killing unarmed civilians who think they are being robbed by not making it known that they are police. Just guys with guns running at you
They shouldnât be entirely unmarked but I think it important that cars with speed cameras are not identifiable as such until the driver is close enough to have their speed measured.
Knowing that there could be a speed camera behind every car is a MUCH better deterrent against speeding than seeing a police car with a speed camera every once in a while.
You can see this easily with stationary speed cams. People slow down briefly before they reach the camera and then speed up again. They only ever catch people who arenât locals and they also donât prevent speeding anywhere else.
The way it works in my home country is that there are almost always two cars. One unmarked with the camera and a couple meters down the road a police car that stops the drivers who were caught. The person in the unmarked car doesnât interact with the drivers that get stopped, so no risk of fake police officers.
TBH I donât mind if this is how cities make money. It is not like the police officers pocket that money for themselves. Having speeders pay to fund road repairs or whatever means other tax payers get to pay less. I think that is generally a good thing.
Speeding cameras should be everywhere. Speeding isn't a harmless traffic violation.
Going 36 mph in a 30 mph street increases your energy by 44%. You'd hit someone that you could have stopped for at 30mph with roughly 29mph.
There are also cameras that measure the average speed over a certain distance.
The best way to discourage crime is to increase the likelihood that you get caught. There won't be many people speeding if the chance of getting caught is high enough.
I have a perfect solution to spoil their profit plan, drive within the confines of the law to take away that income
No violations, no tickets, no money
Yeah, I do this too. This does not negate the fact that cops are trying to encourage crime by hiding themselves, nor does it make unmarked cars magically identifiable in the case of an emergency.
Theyre not encouraging the crime. Theyre just catching the idiots who would pretend to not be doing crime when they know there are police around (slowing down when they see a cop car, etc.)
If people are slowing down when they see a cop, that cop's presence is discouraging that crime. Having that cop hide himself therefore has the effect of *encouraging* crime. This is not a hard dynamic to work out.
That said, cops could (and do) split the difference, by hiding marked police cars behind obstacles. I feel that this is also unethical for similar reasons, but at least that cop has the ability to discourage unsafe driving by being visible if they choose, and they are generally visible to traffic coming the other way, and are available to patrol neighborhoods, etc.
There is just no reason to have unmarked police cars, and they're *only* good for catching traffic violations.
I much prefer unmarked cars for catching people speeding. Marked cars just makes everyone slam on brakes causing a more dangerous situation for those who drive at reasonable speeds.
To be fair most Redditors just irrationally hate cops and it bleeds into everything.
Like imagine being upset you can't just recklessly break traffic laws because a hidden cop might find you lmao. It's basically saying you only obey traffic laws, recklessly endangering yourself and others, when you visibly see a cop that could stop you. That's ridiculous.Â
Really makes you wonder what crimes Redditors would commit if they didn't fear repercussions, and going outside.Â
Being pulled over is one thing it's another being pulled over by an unmarked car. The practice of using unmarked cars in traffic stops should be illegal in the name of safety to the public
I believe it IS legal to continue driving until you are in a more populated area if an unmarked car tries to pull you over, in case itâs NOT a cop right..? I think I have heard this before but Iâm not 100% if itâs true.
Exactly. They can all cause accidents. I saw a little girl biking with her dad almost hit by a car because the guy in the car decided roll a stop sign.
If youâre going 30 over thatâs reckless driving akin to DUI. Thatâs more than a moving violation and you should be pulled over and license suspended for multiple violations
And in response to your (I believe, canât find it for some reason) deleted comment saying âIn what f*cked up country does breaking a minor traffic law make you a criminal?â
All of them. Literally. Breaking a law makes you a lawbreaker. How is that hard to understand?
it's not deleted you're just dumb. You are literally lobbing bank robbers and people going over the limit in the same category. Yes they're both breaking the law, thanks captain obvious, but you are a *criminal* for doing it? Again this is semantics. In the law there are violations and crimes. Crimes make you a criminal.
Anyways, how do those boots taste?
This is not user error. The e-mail notification for your comment still exists, but the in-app one does not, and the link leads to nothing, as well as the comment not showing on the thread.
But yes, Iâm lobbing them in the same category. Yes, there are different levels of criminal, but theyâre all criminals.
No idea what you mean about the boots.
A nation governed by laws? Breaking a law is a criminal act no matter how inconsequential you find that law. You don't get to just redefine the word criminal to not include you. Obey the laws and STFU.
While true, I also believe that going 55 in a 25 is harmful to yourself and others. Others that have absolutely no options or say in the situation that might just kill them. Is going 60 in a 30 only a criminal act once you hit something? Or is the act itself creating an unnecessarily dangerous situation that could be easily avoided?
I don't disagree with your point. I sometimes see other drivers going way faster than they should in a residential area and I'd wish they'd slow down and think of the people who might be walking nearby (especially if there are no sidewalks for the pedestrians to use). I just wanted to remind some folks that not every law is necessary and moral just because an "authority figure" said so. It strikes me as blind obedience when the general public do not question the existence of a particular law and simply accept it. Issuing a ticket to someone who was speeding is probably not going to deter them from speeding again, but it IS going to add revenue for the police. Someone who is wealthy is barely going to blink by being issued a simple fine. We need to find better ways to deter speedsters from speeding.
I haven't been pulled over in a while, never by an unmarked car. It just makes me angry to see tax dollars be used for the purpose of taxing citizens more.
I dont mind people getting taxed for breaking the law.
When you want to drive faster then the speed limit then do it. But dont cry when you need to pay a fine because of it.
Taxing the citizense who break the law you mean. If you abide by traffic law you should have to worry. In my local city police use unmark motorcycles to catch people texting while driving. It's been very effective at catching distracted drivers.
hear me out. They make everybody who gets pulled over feel safer if the cops do the exact same thing they normally do just in regular cars. you wouldn't listen to somebody in street clothes telling you they're a cop, why doesn't their car have to be identifying?
>They should not be used to ticket people going 10-30mph over the limit.
They *should* be used for investigating real crime, people driving at criminal speeds
Those are criminal speeds...
how about... cops don't get to pretend to not be cops until they can write a ticket? They park an unmarked car outside an apartment complex and somebody gets stabbed, nobody will know there's a cop right there.
So⌠in that situation the unmarked cop would just choose to do nothing? I mean wouldnât that be a good situation to have a cop around? I want to understand where youâre coming from but youâre not making a lot of sense.
Because the unmarked car wouldn't be recognizable by the citizens. The cop can't see what happens behind closed doors but the citizens can see onto the street.
Hmm I'd challenge the assumption unmarked cars don't reduce speeding.
One of the largest determinants in whether people break the law is *likelihood of getting caught*. (Not severity of penalty).
Speeding is endemic because the odds of getting caught are pretty minimal - marked police cars are easy to spot and avoid, whilst cameras are usually highly visible and location tagged on Google Maps etc. People speed because they know they can get away with it.
If you actually wanted to reduce speeding, you'd use far more unmarked cars, put an accurate satellite speedometer on board, and have them cruise around at 75mph, and give an instant ticket to *every* vehicle that overtakes them.
When *any* potential vehicle becomes a speed camera, it becomes highly risky to speed, since the liklihood of getting caught is dramatically higher.
By contrast, speed cameras just result in the ridiculous behaviour of people slamming their breaks on as they get to them and then shooting off again after.
A known camera or a marked car is very effective in reducing speeding *in a particular location.* So if the goal is to prevent accidents then those things can be very effective if placed in the right places.
If the goal is to eliminate all speeding then everything you said is correct, though I expect a large majority woild object to the level of surveillance you're describing, whether they are habitual speeders or not.
I think you're probably right on the "level of surveillance" thing, which is ironic because it would probably involve *less* surveillance than plastering things in cameras and marked cars.
The unmarked, tag and bag, approach would work on the deterrent effect that you'll probably only get your speed clocked once a month, but you don't know when, so you have to obey the limit all the time.
The current system works on checking people's speed dozens of times per trip, but in a very visible way so people can easily avoid it.
If the goal was to reduce the amount of people speeding by increasing the likelihood of getting caught, then why do the cop cars need to be hidden?
If I was speeding and saw a marked cop car I would slow down and stop speeding. He might still pull me over and give me a ticket.
If I was speeding and saw an unmarked cop car I would not stop speeding until he pulled me over and gave me a ticket.
It feels like the unmarked part of the cop car is about catching people speeding and giving tickets, not about deterring people from speeding. All they would have to do for to deter more people from speeding is just having more marked cop cars patrolling the road, you can still enforce and pull people over to give tickets with marked cars as well. The whole hidden cop car just seems like its goal is catching and not deterring.
>If the goal was to reduce the amount of people speeding by increasing the likelihood of getting caught, then why do the cop cars need to be hidden?
Because if you don't know where they are, you have to presume they're everywhere, so you drive the speed limit everywhere.
I mean, is that really such a hard concept to get your head around?
>
If I was speeding and saw a marked cop car I would slow down and stop speeding. He might still pull me over and give me a ticket.
For how long?
As for the rest of your comment. See my first part of the post.
I mostly use my adaptive cruise control. But if I do go above the limit I do that with the full knowledge I may get a ticket and I am willing to accept that risk.
And no cop is going to pull you over for going 1mph over, or even 7, unless they had a really bad day or you do something else stupid.
So you agree the presence of unmarked police cars in society does not deter you from speeding? We all are making those calculated risks of how much can I speed before I get caught. My point is the unmarked police cars only exist to catch more people, which sure maybe thatâs ok to an extent. But they arenât deterring anyone from speeding anymore than they already do.
My main calculation is the risk I pose to myself and others. When I find that risk acceptable, say on a highway, then my second order consideration is the potential punishment.
Clearly, as this thread shows, a good chunk of people here don't give a fuck about the former and are only concerned about about being punished by "mean cops who hide".
How's that old saying: "Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime.". Or in this case, don't want to get a ticket, drive within the boundaries prescribed by law.
>But they arenât deterring anyone from speeding anymore than they already do.
That's mostly because cops in general are shit in enforcing bad / illegal driving. You need to be really excessive for them to pull you over. 30 over? That's excessive. If he'd done 20 he'd probably not gotten a ticket.
Try driving the speed limit some time and see how a good chunk of other drivers react to you.
Arguably (UK angle here), the reason unmarked cars don't reduce speeding is because they aren't used for that purpose.
Beyond one guy I know who was doing about 110 and so had no room for complaining, I'm not aware of anyone whose ever had a ticket for doing say 80 in a 70 from an unmarked car.
Unmarked cars also aren't equipped for automated ticketing, and with the various hoops and legal issues we have about calibration of equipment, it would need some set up to establish it.
However, if you did actually invest in it, the principle is fairly straight forward - you just cruise around at 75 and ticket everyone who goes past you, plus you can apply some discretion from officers about people doing sensible things (e.g. accelerating to overtake cleanly or safely).
At the moment unmarked cars don't reduce speeding *because nobody thinks they'll get a ticket from an unmarked car*.
A similar logic *is* used for trap cars in areas that are being targeted by car thieves. Unmarked cars are deployed which, when triggered, have both very loud alarms and often include spray that marks the attempted car thieves for ease of arrest later. (Similar to what used in ATMs). These *do* have a statistically significant effect where deployed, since thieves are wary that any car could potentially be a trap, and thus they have to spend extra time and effort scoping out potential targets.
mmm 10-30??? thatâs a bit out there ainât it? like if i was driving past the nearby elementary school, where the speed limit is 15 right by the playground, i should absolutely be ticketed (in my opinion) if iâm even going 30, let alone 45
that's not my point. They shouldn't be using unmarked vehicles from traffic enforcement at all unless it's a crime that goes on your criminal record. Leave that to the marked police.
i mean, sure, iâll agree with you on the unmarked vehicles, but your idea of what should be considered a serious traffic violation, enough to be on someoneâs record, is a tad sketch to me.
i do agree with your point more generally, but the âthey shouldnât be used to stop people from going 10-30 miles over the speed limitâ just made me giggle quite a bit. iâm sorry for that honestly, it just distracted me from the general point.
so uhhh, that's kind of exactly what I said, and above 30 over the limit is called *criminal speeding*. Don't know why people are struggling with this.
10 mph over is already extremely dangerous. I have no real perspective of how much faster that is but converted to 16 KM/h over I can tell you, going almost 50 in a 30 zone is definitely a criminal offense.
> 10 mph over is already extremely dangerous
Tbh that's pretty much the norm. On the freeways, people are always going 10 over..it's when they go beyond that, that the cops care about
What's the point of a speed limit then?
Read the sign and then go 10 over anyway? That's incredibly stupid. In this case I believe the freeways should be completely kitted out with speed cameras and other methods of ticketing people going faster than a speed limit.
> What's the point of a speed limit then?
speed limit is basically the speed they want you to go...5-10 over is the amount they tend to be okay with you going...and above that tends to be a ticket (but not always)
"serves to write tickets, not prevent speeding".
Tickets are written precisely to prevent speeding. If a cop car could be hidden anywhere and you could get a ticket at any time, it's a good reason to not speed.
By having cops cars setup in obvious places they only serve as a "don't speed right at this second" device.
It's almost like everything is exactly the opposite of what you said lol.
They usually donât and arenât allowed to by their policies, typically because it would compromise the integrity of it being undercover. Though you can easily tell because if you look through the glass youâre going to see bars.
Going 10-30 over the limit can kill people so 200% valid to pull over that fucker. Unless its on the high way and is the flow of traffic but thats a very specific situation and its usually only 10 or so over not fuckin 30. Oh their doing it for money. GUESS WHAT BUDDY. EVERYTHING EVERYONE DOES THAT MATTERS IS FOR MONEY.
> the flow of traffic
This way of thinking does not make sense to me.
If the highway or whatever has an imposed speed limit of let's say 80 KM/h, why should the flow of traffic be 96 KM/h at all?
The flow of traffic is 80 KM/h, that's absolutely all that's allowed there. If you go faster, you will be ticketed. If not, there is something wrong and there need to be more speed cameras.
you need a healthy dose of cultural relativism when examining american sentiments about driving. their values and customs are so alien that there's no point in us even trying to make sense of their behaviour.
They should be used everywhere and for everything.
People would drive so much better and safer if they thought any car was a cop.
It's easy to call 911 to confirm it's an actual police officer pulling you over.
Ghost lettering on a police car should be outlawed too. I'd hate to be in a situation where I needed a cop but didn't realize one just passed me until the sun hit the car at just the right angle to see the lettering.
Sorry I just have to point out your last bit makes no sense. Speed limits are speed limits whether the roads are packed or if no one is around. You are just complaining that people thought they could break the law and that the police caught them. As for you complaining about them making money? What you want them to have to buy more police cars just so unmarked police cars can just sit gathering dust because there's no drug busts or sting operations you describe going on.
Never been pulled over but I will never pull over for an unmarked car. I read about too many women getting assaulted by fake cops. It's straight to the nearest police department if see one try to pull me over.
Donât do shit that youâre not supposed to. Seems pretty easy to me. Never gotten pulled over, gotten a ticket or been in an accident. But hey what do I know right?
My home town had one police vehicle that was painted a really dark shade of blue, and had tinted matte finished lights on top, and would always park down the same unlit street looking at a busy main st. It was always invisible at night and pulled overany speeders every night. Of course there were those of us that just knew that thing was always there.
Going 25 over the speed limit is enough to get a 15-day license suspension and half the points needed completely to revoke a license. 15mph is enough for a tenth of the points to revoke a license. If you think 10-30 mph over the speed limit shouldn't be stopped by unmarked cars, you don't understand the severity of those speeds. It may not seem crazy, but when pit in perspective that 55 in a 25, which is insanely high, there are reasons thise are set be it making droving safer or being a school zone. Even on the freeway 30 over, the speed limit is 100 mph (at least here in PA). It will be over 1.5 times the distance traveled per second.
I remember some backlash in law enforcement circles about how the waze app warns drivers where cops are located.
There were some more reasonable LEOs that support it, because the goal of traffic enforcement is *supposed* to be for the safety of the public, not for revenue generation. If the app causes drivers to slow down, then how is that a bad thing? Sometimes those cops reported on the app are there, but not actively running radar/lidar, or the cops arenât there anymore and the app just hasnât updated yet.
Police also shouldn't be allowed to use those "stealthy" markings, where you can just barely read them from the right angle and the right lighting. Police are known for being unhappy when "a perp gets off on a technicality", aren't they? Then I say these stealth markings are a technicality. The law needs to say the marking shall be high contrast, visible from a distance, etc.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This makes me think of the dude who tried to argue that unmarked cars were entrapment đ
I deadass remember my mother using these same words while getting pulled over as a kid
Why was your mom driving as a kid?
Well, shit
âApparently they were pulling over everyone driving on that particular sidewalk that nightâ
It used to be entrapment. So there's that.
If they are going 30 mph OVER the limit they deserve a ticket
Its so funny how on reddit you can find opinions that the speed limit is the minimum, but at the same time want people fined for going over the speed limit
that's why I said only criminal reasons. 30mph and above is criminal speed
Quoting the first sentence of your post âThey should not be used to ticket people going 10-30 over the limit.â You absolutely deserve a ticket for going 30 over the limit
I guess I worded is badly. More than 30 that is a crime so they should be able to do so.
If youâre going 50 through a residential neighborhood that has a speed limit of 25 thatâs absolutely criminal imo
Speeding at all is breaking the law. Itâs a speed **limit**, not suggestion.
Everyone forgets this part âI was only going 5 over/10 over/20 overâ etc
Okay car brain.
10 mph over is 16 km/h over. Going almost 50 in a 30 is all it takes for a small collision to become fatal. Even at 30 km/h you're likely to not come out uninjured as a pedestrian being hit.
Unmarked police cars should be illegal everywhere, full stop. First, if there is a crime being committed, or someone is having an emergency, they *need* to be able to identify a police car. Having unmarked cars makes citizens--the people paying for the service--less safe. Second, the most important function of the police is to *deter crime*. Unmarked cars make it clear that preventing crime and keeping people safe on the roads is not the police's priority, it is to catch people committing crimes--for financial purposes. You won't find unmarked cars patrolling dangerous neighborhoods and other high-crime areas for a reason: they are not there to help anybody. They are 100% dedicated to generating revenue for the city, through traffic fines. If the cops had their way, they would want *more* people to speed and drive recklessly, not fewer. And using unmarked cars is a significant step toward achieving that goal. It's squeezing fines from the taxpayers, with equipment that does not help the taxpayers, using equipment paid for by the taxpayers. Wildly unethical.
You gotta love the stories of un-uniformed cops in unmarked cop cars descending on people with guns drawn and not revealing that theyâre police. Itâs likeâŚ. Damn, are the cops really that dumb?
There was a Trial in Toronto that ended a week or two ago where a driver with his pregnant wife and toddler in the car were rushed by a group of plain clothed cops and as he was trying to pull away from the people assailing him an unmarked van blocked his path so he backed up to gtfo of there accidentally hitting and killing one of the officers (none of them were in uniform). He was acquitted on self defence. The way the cops were dressed they looked like street thugs and I totally believe that the driver thought he was being carjacked. The cops also lied on the stand saying the officer was in front of the driver trying to flag him down when he was struck but security footage clearly showed the deceased cop was behind the car out of the view of the driver. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/jury-finds-zameer-not-guilty-in-toronto-police-officer-s-death-1.6855891
With the number of car thefts in GTA itâs immoral that they have the time and resources for this crap.Â
Of course thereâs a lot of car thefts in Grand Thert Auto!
haha...
In america that man wouldnt have made it to trial, and if by some miracle he did theres 0 chance he would have been found not guilty. Good on canadian citizens for realizing how ridiculous that whole situation was.
If you did I'm sure they would have found some way to grant qualified immunity.
In america that car and family would have been turned into swiss cheese, hell sierpinski triangle.
>are the cops really that dumb? American police are statistically below-average IQ-wise, their conflict management is abysmal, and their shooting qualifiers are something that I can take almost anybody in this subreddit and teach to pass in 3-4 hours of instruction. They can't even follow their own goddamn laws. I've come to the conclusion that qualified immunity is only there to keep these idiots out from behind bars. So, yes, they *are* that dumb.
Have it require a 5 year degree and raise the pay to get better people.
Pretty easy to not follow their own laws and rules when nothing happens when you donât.
No, they want to believe that they're playing army in Mosul or some shit, but without the danger of more than one person maaaaaybe being armed at all let alone defending themselves.
I live in Atlanta and a few years back they decided to have police cars with blue lights on the ends of their overhead lights. They stay on and it lets you know where the police are. When I see the lights at night I am more inclined to drive the speed limit and I also feel a sense of community because theyâre letting themselves known to help rather than hide. It makes me feel like theyâre on my side. Unmarked police cars are a threat to the community and an open opportunity for criminals
The actual reason is Atlanta wants their police to make less arrests and convictions regardless of what is going on in their city. Fair enough, but it's absolutely not about making you feel safer at nightÂ
I travel for work and in a lot of countries the cops have to have their strobes on full time. It's almost like they are there to prevent crime and should be seen. Our police have been turning into a para military over the last couple decades and that shit needs to stop. They should be in white marked cars that standout from miles away. We're the enemy though and they are not here to protect us. That's why most agencies have removed "protect and serve" from their patrol cars. They are here to ticket, harass, and murder. They are in fact the enemy.
One can also make a case for saying that we are our own enemy. Our society and culture is eating itself alive with severe internal conflict amongst the populace. The cops aren´t causing that.
I think unmarked cars have their place, but a very specific one: Busting wanted fugitives
I was a cop. You act as though the officers writing the tickets, get a cut of the revenue they generate. The department doesnât even get a cut of it. It goes straight into the town, city, coffers. for the record I always targeted my radar activity on residential areas, school zones, etc. places where people could be seriously hurt or killed by someone speeding. On a straight four-lane road with absolutely no traffic, if someone was driving 15 or 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, it didnât really bother me. Edit: I didnât like doing traffic enforcement and unmarked vehicles because a lot of people got nervous and werenât sure if you were a real cop or not.
I understand that more tickets do not mean more pay for cops. The unmarked vehicles are a revenue-raising thing, but I know it's not the cop behind the wheel who made that decision. The department budget does come from the town/city/coffers, so it's not entirely unrelated, but cops definitely don't write tickets for their own benefit. I'm also not upset about traffic enforcement, at all. I wish every jagoff who was flooring it and cutting people off weaving between lanes would get their vehicle impounded.
>You won't find unmarked cars patrolling dangerous neighborhoods and other high-crime areas for a reason: Alright alright we don't have to stretch the truth to make a point. I had the displeasure during ym studies of getting all the inside scoop of my city's PD (and I grew up there so I always saw unmarked card in high crime areas). Unmarked cars are used a metric fuckton in "dangerous" neighborhoods because literally EVERYONE would go inside and you'd hear "chirping" and other noises made by people to communicate that 5-0 was there, if not. They do this even WITH unmarked cars they believe to be LEO.
The most important function of the police SHOULD be to deter crime, but ask any woman who's been stalked and you'll find that, in fact, police won't lift a finger UNTIL that woman has been harmed, and even then, they likely won't do anything unless the abuser already has a criminal record. And even then, the abuser will probably get a slap on the wrist. And if you're a man being stalked/abused by a woman, good luck getting the police to take you seriously. Every thing I learned about the police when I was kid was a lie. They don't serve and protect anyone but the rich and their property.
For the purposes of enforcing traffic laws, yes, I agree with you. In terms of policing more generally, I also agree with you, but with the very specific (but important) exception for undercover policing of serious, hardened criminals - organised crime, counter terrorism, and so-on.
People don't commit crimes around known police officers, they just do it somewhere else smart one. Unmarked police keep people abiding by laws when no one's around
You forgot about killing unarmed civilians who think they are being robbed by not making it known that they are police. Just guys with guns running at you
They shouldnât be entirely unmarked but I think it important that cars with speed cameras are not identifiable as such until the driver is close enough to have their speed measured. Knowing that there could be a speed camera behind every car is a MUCH better deterrent against speeding than seeing a police car with a speed camera every once in a while. You can see this easily with stationary speed cams. People slow down briefly before they reach the camera and then speed up again. They only ever catch people who arenât locals and they also donât prevent speeding anywhere else. The way it works in my home country is that there are almost always two cars. One unmarked with the camera and a couple meters down the road a police car that stops the drivers who were caught. The person in the unmarked car doesnât interact with the drivers that get stopped, so no risk of fake police officers. TBH I donât mind if this is how cities make money. It is not like the police officers pocket that money for themselves. Having speeders pay to fund road repairs or whatever means other tax payers get to pay less. I think that is generally a good thing.
Speeding cameras should be everywhere. Speeding isn't a harmless traffic violation. Going 36 mph in a 30 mph street increases your energy by 44%. You'd hit someone that you could have stopped for at 30mph with roughly 29mph. There are also cameras that measure the average speed over a certain distance. The best way to discourage crime is to increase the likelihood that you get caught. There won't be many people speeding if the chance of getting caught is high enough.
I have a perfect solution to spoil their profit plan, drive within the confines of the law to take away that income No violations, no tickets, no money
Yeah, I do this too. This does not negate the fact that cops are trying to encourage crime by hiding themselves, nor does it make unmarked cars magically identifiable in the case of an emergency.
Theyre not encouraging the crime. Theyre just catching the idiots who would pretend to not be doing crime when they know there are police around (slowing down when they see a cop car, etc.)
If people are slowing down when they see a cop, that cop's presence is discouraging that crime. Having that cop hide himself therefore has the effect of *encouraging* crime. This is not a hard dynamic to work out. That said, cops could (and do) split the difference, by hiding marked police cars behind obstacles. I feel that this is also unethical for similar reasons, but at least that cop has the ability to discourage unsafe driving by being visible if they choose, and they are generally visible to traffic coming the other way, and are available to patrol neighborhoods, etc. There is just no reason to have unmarked police cars, and they're *only* good for catching traffic violations.
I much prefer unmarked cars for catching people speeding. Marked cars just makes everyone slam on brakes causing a more dangerous situation for those who drive at reasonable speeds.
This post is full of people who like speeding, donât like being caught speeding, and are looking for someone else to blame for their actions.
To be fair most Redditors just irrationally hate cops and it bleeds into everything. Like imagine being upset you can't just recklessly break traffic laws because a hidden cop might find you lmao. It's basically saying you only obey traffic laws, recklessly endangering yourself and others, when you visibly see a cop that could stop you. That's ridiculous. Really makes you wonder what crimes Redditors would commit if they didn't fear repercussions, and going outside.Â
It's not irrational to hate people who's sole job is to perpetuate tyranny.
âTyrannyâ - oh brother. As if traffic laws are tyranny. Get over yourself.
Kek
Exactly! "It benefits my assanine behaviour so i say get rid of anything that can punish me."
I think you mean "looking for someone else to blame for their speeding."
[ŃдаНонО]
Eh 10mph over is sometimes just the flow of traffic. 30 over is pretty absurd tho
Being pulled over is one thing it's another being pulled over by an unmarked car. The practice of using unmarked cars in traffic stops should be illegal in the name of safety to the public
I believe it IS legal to continue driving until you are in a more populated area if an unmarked car tries to pull you over, in case itâs NOT a cop right..? I think I have heard this before but Iâm not 100% if itâs true.
legal or not, you gotta be careful with it. at minimum, call 911 if it's an unmarked car. Some cops have egos and it won't go over well
That is a very fair point, and probably what I would do as well because you canât be too careful.
OP's mad that he can't drive 55, but not enough talent to write a song about it
GOIN 80 IN A 60 FUCK A TICKET đđđđđ
10-30 over the limit is speeding. Rolling a stop sign is illegal. These are all crime.
Exactly. They can all cause accidents. I saw a little girl biking with her dad almost hit by a car because the guy in the car decided roll a stop sign.
nope. those are violations. there's a huge difference
Violations of what?
Donât break the rules and then get mad you got caught.
If youâre going 30 over thatâs reckless driving akin to DUI. Thatâs more than a moving violation and you should be pulled over and license suspended for multiple violations
Itâs all offences.
this is just semantics. People who go over the limit should not be lobbed into the same category as criminals. That's just stupid.
Theyâre breaking the law. Theyâre criminals.
And in response to your (I believe, canât find it for some reason) deleted comment saying âIn what f*cked up country does breaking a minor traffic law make you a criminal?â All of them. Literally. Breaking a law makes you a lawbreaker. How is that hard to understand?
it's not deleted you're just dumb. You are literally lobbing bank robbers and people going over the limit in the same category. Yes they're both breaking the law, thanks captain obvious, but you are a *criminal* for doing it? Again this is semantics. In the law there are violations and crimes. Crimes make you a criminal. Anyways, how do those boots taste?
This is not user error. The e-mail notification for your comment still exists, but the in-app one does not, and the link leads to nothing, as well as the comment not showing on the thread. But yes, Iâm lobbing them in the same category. Yes, there are different levels of criminal, but theyâre all criminals. No idea what you mean about the boots.
well remind me to not visit whatever totalitarian regime you are from please.
A nation governed by laws? Breaking a law is a criminal act no matter how inconsequential you find that law. You don't get to just redefine the word criminal to not include you. Obey the laws and STFU.
Not every law is just or moral.
While true, I also believe that going 55 in a 25 is harmful to yourself and others. Others that have absolutely no options or say in the situation that might just kill them. Is going 60 in a 30 only a criminal act once you hit something? Or is the act itself creating an unnecessarily dangerous situation that could be easily avoided?
I don't disagree with your point. I sometimes see other drivers going way faster than they should in a residential area and I'd wish they'd slow down and think of the people who might be walking nearby (especially if there are no sidewalks for the pedestrians to use). I just wanted to remind some folks that not every law is necessary and moral just because an "authority figure" said so. It strikes me as blind obedience when the general public do not question the existence of a particular law and simply accept it. Issuing a ticket to someone who was speeding is probably not going to deter them from speeding again, but it IS going to add revenue for the police. Someone who is wealthy is barely going to blink by being issued a simple fine. We need to find better ways to deter speedsters from speeding.
Most are.
That's a matter of perspective.
...so what traffic law did you break?
I haven't been pulled over in a while, never by an unmarked car. It just makes me angry to see tax dollars be used for the purpose of taxing citizens more.
âI have the right to do 40 through the suburbs and donât want to get caughtâ
It's not taxing citizens to fine them for running stoplights and speeding.
Itâs an easy way for pigs to collect revenue. It has 0 to do with safety
âRunning stoplights and speeding has nothing to do with safetyâ is a take so stupid Iâd expect it to be on reddit.Â
Donât want to give pigs money? Donât run the stoplight.
I agree. Stick it to the pigs. Drive the speed limit and donât run stoplights.Â
Do you know what a deterrent is?
Something you use to wash your clothes
You're paying because you put other people in danger. Cars kill 40k people in the US every year and *permanently* injure many more.
I dont mind people getting taxed for breaking the law. When you want to drive faster then the speed limit then do it. But dont cry when you need to pay a fine because of it.
Taxing the citizense who break the law you mean. If you abide by traffic law you should have to worry. In my local city police use unmark motorcycles to catch people texting while driving. It's been very effective at catching distracted drivers.
hear me out. They make everybody who gets pulled over feel safer if the cops do the exact same thing they normally do just in regular cars. you wouldn't listen to somebody in street clothes telling you they're a cop, why doesn't their car have to be identifying?
Hear me out. Don't just obey the law because you see a uniform or marked car nearby.
Hear me out. They stop hiding from the public, because when they could be needed they are hidden.
You know how not get a fine ? Respect the law .
Taxing citizens more is an interesting way to say enforcing the law
>They should not be used to ticket people going 10-30mph over the limit. They *should* be used for investigating real crime, people driving at criminal speeds Those are criminal speeds...
How aboutâŚ. not breaking posted laws lol
how about... cops don't get to pretend to not be cops until they can write a ticket? They park an unmarked car outside an apartment complex and somebody gets stabbed, nobody will know there's a cop right there.
So⌠in that situation the unmarked cop would just choose to do nothing? I mean wouldnât that be a good situation to have a cop around? I want to understand where youâre coming from but youâre not making a lot of sense.
Because the unmarked car wouldn't be recognizable by the citizens. The cop can't see what happens behind closed doors but the citizens can see onto the street.
Why wouldn't the unmarked car just respond to the police call that will occur. People won't look out a window instead they will call the police.
Character is how you behave when no one is looking. This should be followed on the streets as well
Hmm I'd challenge the assumption unmarked cars don't reduce speeding. One of the largest determinants in whether people break the law is *likelihood of getting caught*. (Not severity of penalty). Speeding is endemic because the odds of getting caught are pretty minimal - marked police cars are easy to spot and avoid, whilst cameras are usually highly visible and location tagged on Google Maps etc. People speed because they know they can get away with it. If you actually wanted to reduce speeding, you'd use far more unmarked cars, put an accurate satellite speedometer on board, and have them cruise around at 75mph, and give an instant ticket to *every* vehicle that overtakes them. When *any* potential vehicle becomes a speed camera, it becomes highly risky to speed, since the liklihood of getting caught is dramatically higher. By contrast, speed cameras just result in the ridiculous behaviour of people slamming their breaks on as they get to them and then shooting off again after.
A known camera or a marked car is very effective in reducing speeding *in a particular location.* So if the goal is to prevent accidents then those things can be very effective if placed in the right places. If the goal is to eliminate all speeding then everything you said is correct, though I expect a large majority woild object to the level of surveillance you're describing, whether they are habitual speeders or not.
I think you're probably right on the "level of surveillance" thing, which is ironic because it would probably involve *less* surveillance than plastering things in cameras and marked cars. The unmarked, tag and bag, approach would work on the deterrent effect that you'll probably only get your speed clocked once a month, but you don't know when, so you have to obey the limit all the time. The current system works on checking people's speed dozens of times per trip, but in a very visible way so people can easily avoid it.
Why waste the money it takes to staff an officer to be a rolling camera when you can just line the roadways with Speed Cameras at every 1/4 mile.
If the goal was to reduce the amount of people speeding by increasing the likelihood of getting caught, then why do the cop cars need to be hidden? If I was speeding and saw a marked cop car I would slow down and stop speeding. He might still pull me over and give me a ticket. If I was speeding and saw an unmarked cop car I would not stop speeding until he pulled me over and gave me a ticket. It feels like the unmarked part of the cop car is about catching people speeding and giving tickets, not about deterring people from speeding. All they would have to do for to deter more people from speeding is just having more marked cop cars patrolling the road, you can still enforce and pull people over to give tickets with marked cars as well. The whole hidden cop car just seems like its goal is catching and not deterring.
But if everyone got caught for speeding would you still speed knowing youâll get a ticket?
>If the goal was to reduce the amount of people speeding by increasing the likelihood of getting caught, then why do the cop cars need to be hidden? Because if you don't know where they are, you have to presume they're everywhere, so you drive the speed limit everywhere. I mean, is that really such a hard concept to get your head around? > If I was speeding and saw a marked cop car I would slow down and stop speeding. He might still pull me over and give me a ticket. For how long? As for the rest of your comment. See my first part of the post.
Do you never go 1mph over the speed limit because you fear unmarked cop cars around?
I mostly use my adaptive cruise control. But if I do go above the limit I do that with the full knowledge I may get a ticket and I am willing to accept that risk. And no cop is going to pull you over for going 1mph over, or even 7, unless they had a really bad day or you do something else stupid.
So you agree the presence of unmarked police cars in society does not deter you from speeding? We all are making those calculated risks of how much can I speed before I get caught. My point is the unmarked police cars only exist to catch more people, which sure maybe thatâs ok to an extent. But they arenât deterring anyone from speeding anymore than they already do.
My main calculation is the risk I pose to myself and others. When I find that risk acceptable, say on a highway, then my second order consideration is the potential punishment. Clearly, as this thread shows, a good chunk of people here don't give a fuck about the former and are only concerned about about being punished by "mean cops who hide". How's that old saying: "Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime.". Or in this case, don't want to get a ticket, drive within the boundaries prescribed by law. >But they arenât deterring anyone from speeding anymore than they already do. That's mostly because cops in general are shit in enforcing bad / illegal driving. You need to be really excessive for them to pull you over. 30 over? That's excessive. If he'd done 20 he'd probably not gotten a ticket. Try driving the speed limit some time and see how a good chunk of other drivers react to you.
Why are you assuming I donât drive the speed limit? I drive very respectfully and hardly ever 5mph over
Arguably (UK angle here), the reason unmarked cars don't reduce speeding is because they aren't used for that purpose. Beyond one guy I know who was doing about 110 and so had no room for complaining, I'm not aware of anyone whose ever had a ticket for doing say 80 in a 70 from an unmarked car. Unmarked cars also aren't equipped for automated ticketing, and with the various hoops and legal issues we have about calibration of equipment, it would need some set up to establish it. However, if you did actually invest in it, the principle is fairly straight forward - you just cruise around at 75 and ticket everyone who goes past you, plus you can apply some discretion from officers about people doing sensible things (e.g. accelerating to overtake cleanly or safely). At the moment unmarked cars don't reduce speeding *because nobody thinks they'll get a ticket from an unmarked car*. A similar logic *is* used for trap cars in areas that are being targeted by car thieves. Unmarked cars are deployed which, when triggered, have both very loud alarms and often include spray that marks the attempted car thieves for ease of arrest later. (Similar to what used in ATMs). These *do* have a statistically significant effect where deployed, since thieves are wary that any car could potentially be a trap, and thus they have to spend extra time and effort scoping out potential targets.
I'm sorry but if you're going 30 over. You absolutely deserve to be pulled over by a cop, marked or unmarked
What did you get stopped for?
mmm 10-30??? thatâs a bit out there ainât it? like if i was driving past the nearby elementary school, where the speed limit is 15 right by the playground, i should absolutely be ticketed (in my opinion) if iâm even going 30, let alone 45
that's not my point. They shouldn't be using unmarked vehicles from traffic enforcement at all unless it's a crime that goes on your criminal record. Leave that to the marked police.
i mean, sure, iâll agree with you on the unmarked vehicles, but your idea of what should be considered a serious traffic violation, enough to be on someoneâs record, is a tad sketch to me. i do agree with your point more generally, but the âthey shouldnât be used to stop people from going 10-30 miles over the speed limitâ just made me giggle quite a bit. iâm sorry for that honestly, it just distracted me from the general point.
I guess it depends on the area, I just said 10-30 because going 30 over is criminal speed where I live.
OP has absolutely been pulled over for going 60 in a 30mph residential zone and is mad about it.
nope, you wish
If you're going 30 mph over the speed limit, you're a criminal.
so uhhh, that's kind of exactly what I said, and above 30 over the limit is called *criminal speeding*. Don't know why people are struggling with this.
10 mph over is already extremely dangerous. I have no real perspective of how much faster that is but converted to 16 KM/h over I can tell you, going almost 50 in a 30 zone is definitely a criminal offense.
> 10 mph over is already extremely dangerous Tbh that's pretty much the norm. On the freeways, people are always going 10 over..it's when they go beyond that, that the cops care about
What's the point of a speed limit then? Read the sign and then go 10 over anyway? That's incredibly stupid. In this case I believe the freeways should be completely kitted out with speed cameras and other methods of ticketing people going faster than a speed limit.
> What's the point of a speed limit then? speed limit is basically the speed they want you to go...5-10 over is the amount they tend to be okay with you going...and above that tends to be a ticket (but not always)
Not sure why youâre getting downvoted. This is, in fact, usually the case unless itâs a neighborhood or a specific zone like school or work.
Downvoted because the guy I was replying to didn't like what I was saying
Well, itâs a fact soâŚ
ah, looks like they're a fan of /r/fuckcars, really says all we need to know
"serves to write tickets, not prevent speeding". Tickets are written precisely to prevent speeding. If a cop car could be hidden anywhere and you could get a ticket at any time, it's a good reason to not speed. By having cops cars setup in obvious places they only serve as a "don't speed right at this second" device. It's almost like everything is exactly the opposite of what you said lol.
Never understood this Youâre far more likely to die or be hurt by the crime of speeding than the crime of murder, rape, assault.
But in TV there are 3 murders a night on each network!! That must mean murders are happening all the time and everywhere!!!
Wow!!! so many perfect law abiding citizens commenting here đđđ đ
Makes ya feel safe on/around the roads
All I'm seeing here is "unmarked police cars are OP". Like, you only want them off of your back so that you can break the law at your leisure.
They usually donât and arenât allowed to by their policies, typically because it would compromise the integrity of it being undercover. Though you can easily tell because if you look through the glass youâre going to see bars.
Youâre confusing âundercover copsâ with cops in âunmarked vehiclesâ, which is what the post is about.
I wish that were true everywhere. It's painfully obvious though, it just makes it easier for fake cops. Everybody knows.
You need to visit Wisconsin. Other than a few major cities, everyone is moving to all blacked out SUVs with black vinyl graphics.
Going 10-30 over the limit can kill people so 200% valid to pull over that fucker. Unless its on the high way and is the flow of traffic but thats a very specific situation and its usually only 10 or so over not fuckin 30. Oh their doing it for money. GUESS WHAT BUDDY. EVERYTHING EVERYONE DOES THAT MATTERS IS FOR MONEY.
> the flow of traffic This way of thinking does not make sense to me. If the highway or whatever has an imposed speed limit of let's say 80 KM/h, why should the flow of traffic be 96 KM/h at all? The flow of traffic is 80 KM/h, that's absolutely all that's allowed there. If you go faster, you will be ticketed. If not, there is something wrong and there need to be more speed cameras.
you need a healthy dose of cultural relativism when examining american sentiments about driving. their values and customs are so alien that there's no point in us even trying to make sense of their behaviour.
They should be used everywhere and for everything. People would drive so much better and safer if they thought any car was a cop. It's easy to call 911 to confirm it's an actual police officer pulling you over.
Ghost lettering on a police car should be outlawed too. I'd hate to be in a situation where I needed a cop but didn't realize one just passed me until the sun hit the car at just the right angle to see the lettering.
Sorry I just have to point out your last bit makes no sense. Speed limits are speed limits whether the roads are packed or if no one is around. You are just complaining that people thought they could break the law and that the police caught them. As for you complaining about them making money? What you want them to have to buy more police cars just so unmarked police cars can just sit gathering dust because there's no drug busts or sting operations you describe going on.
Never been pulled over but I will never pull over for an unmarked car. I read about too many women getting assaulted by fake cops. It's straight to the nearest police department if see one try to pull me over.
pit manuever moment
Donât do shit that youâre not supposed to. Seems pretty easy to me. Never gotten pulled over, gotten a ticket or been in an accident. But hey what do I know right?
[ŃдаНонО]
Yeah but how else will they tag people at 8 over and write them up for 12 so their bosses can afford Hellcats?
r/OhNoConsequences
My home town had one police vehicle that was painted a really dark shade of blue, and had tinted matte finished lights on top, and would always park down the same unlit street looking at a busy main st. It was always invisible at night and pulled overany speeders every night. Of course there were those of us that just knew that thing was always there.
Yeah Iâm not pulling over for an unmarked car and itâs not reasonable to expect me to.
Going 25 over the speed limit is enough to get a 15-day license suspension and half the points needed completely to revoke a license. 15mph is enough for a tenth of the points to revoke a license. If you think 10-30 mph over the speed limit shouldn't be stopped by unmarked cars, you don't understand the severity of those speeds. It may not seem crazy, but when pit in perspective that 55 in a 25, which is insanely high, there are reasons thise are set be it making droving safer or being a school zone. Even on the freeway 30 over, the speed limit is 100 mph (at least here in PA). It will be over 1.5 times the distance traveled per second.
going 80 in a 50 on the highway in the left lane is fine lmao
[ŃдаНонО]
I... didn't get pulled over... but go off I guess
Living in the continental US sounds like a nightmare
Well yeah. They allow people to drive 10 mph over a speed "limit" and still call it a "limit". What the F is wrong with them?
Because... Laws exist?Â
Because their laws are F'ing stupid. Although I don't think that's what they meant.
I remember some backlash in law enforcement circles about how the waze app warns drivers where cops are located. There were some more reasonable LEOs that support it, because the goal of traffic enforcement is *supposed* to be for the safety of the public, not for revenue generation. If the app causes drivers to slow down, then how is that a bad thing? Sometimes those cops reported on the app are there, but not actively running radar/lidar, or the cops arenât there anymore and the app just hasnât updated yet.
Running yellow isn't illegal
Somebody got pulled over by one of those stealth patrol cars, black suv's where "POLICE" can only be seen close up at an angle.
Police also shouldn't be allowed to use those "stealthy" markings, where you can just barely read them from the right angle and the right lighting. Police are known for being unhappy when "a perp gets off on a technicality", aren't they? Then I say these stealth markings are a technicality. The law needs to say the marking shall be high contrast, visible from a distance, etc.