Police chief denounces ‘cowardly’ iPhone users monitoring speed traps.
Area drivers looking to outwit police speed traps and traffic cameras are using an iPhone application and other global positioning system devices that pinpoint the location of the cameras. That has irked D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier, who promised her officers would pick up their game to counteract the devices, which can also help drivers dodge sobriety checkpoints.
“I think that’s the whole point of this program,” she told The Examiner. “It’s designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.”
Read: Make Money
The new technology streams to i-Phones and global positioning system devices, sounding off an alarm as drivers approach speed or red-light cameras. Lanier said the technology is a “cowardly tactic” and “people who overly rely on those and break the law anyway are going to get caught” in one way or another. The greater D.C. area has 290 red-light and speed cameras — comprising nearly 10 percent of all traffic cameras in the U.S., according to estimates by a camera-tracking database called the POI Factory.
PhantomAlert mimics radar detectors — which are outlawed in D.C. and Virginia — by alerting drivers of nearby enforcement “points of interest” via global positioning system devices. PhantomAlert keeps up to date on traffic enforcement through its users, who contribute information online.
Photo radar tickets generated nearly $1 billion in revenues for D.C. during fiscal years 2005 to 2008. In the current fiscal year, Montgomery County expects to make $29 million from its red light and speed cameras. Lanier said efforts to outlaw the software would be too difficult. She said, “with the Internet and all the new technology, it’s almost impossible to stop the flow of information.”
Isn’t counter surveillance great? Since I started traveling in New Mexico, “The Land of Entrapment” I’ve found this app is worth the price of the phone itself!
So where is the app?
#27
What you clearly have missed is that the laws themselves are in question. Should the government be allowed to set a speed limit when they cannot justify it via public safety? If all revenue to local government from speeding tickets were eliminated, speeding enforcement would drop like a rock. It would be revert back to enforcement for purposes of public safety and not for local revenue. I live in LA and there are some freeways where the limit ought to be 80 MPH. The primary reason it is 55 is for revenue purposes. It is a stupid game that the police and the drivers all understand. I would much rather have police patrolling school zones for speeding than freeways.
#29, Rick,
The promise to pay a certain amount in insurance is irrelevant. If there were no “accidents” then the premium would be free and the need non-existant.
I spent several years doing industrial accident investigation. The premise I always started from is there is no such thing as an “accident”. There is always an assignable cause. It is my understanding that in traffic “accidents” the most common contributing factor is excessive speed. It is also the largest factor in the severity of injury and damage.
With the insurance, my policy will pay if I’m in an accident. My premiums will rise though whether or not I am at fault. If the next idiot that thinks he owns the road causes an accident and is insured by my company, my premiums will contribute to that payout. All our premiums goes to cover the loss. That is the way the game is played.
Fewer accidents and less payouts. Most insurance companies recognize that by reducing premiums for good (safe) drivers.
#32, Thomas,
What you clearly have missed is that the laws themselves are in question. Should the government be allowed to set a speed limit when they cannot justify it via public safety?
No one has established that any of the spots chosen by the DC Police Department could not be justified by public safety. Reading the above comments is the distinct impression that many people want to set the limit at what THEY think is a safe limit.
I live in LA and there are some freeways where the limit ought to be 80 MPH. The primary reason it is 55 is for revenue purposes. It is a stupid game that the police and the drivers all understand.
Wrong. Most, if not all the freeways in the LA area are US Interstates. Federal law requires a maximum safe speed limit of 55 mph on all Interstate highways in urban areas. While you might think this is set by the police, it isn’t. The areas are determined by the California Department of Highways.
Again, you are the one trying to determine what a safe speed is. You don’t have any studies to back up your position. All you have is your strong desire to do what you want, regardless of what the law is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgiVicpZGk
> the most common contributing
> factor is excessive speed
True. Not the cause of the accident mind you, but a contributor to the additional damage resulting from the accident. If anyone really thought speed was the cause of the accident, then they also must believe that we should all drive 10 MPH. After, all, going from 10 to 20 doubles the speed and dramatically increases the damage.
It should also be noted that many of these statistics are toyed with by law enforcement to further their own position. For example, suppose someone turns left in front traffic and causes an accident. If the person that hit the driver turning left was speeding, they will claim that speeding contributed to the accident which is utter nonsense.
> Federal law requires a maximum safe
> speed limit of 55 mph on all Interstate
> highways in urban areas. While you might
> think this is set by the police, it isn’t.
> The areas are determined by the California
> Department of Highways.
A. I believe it is actually 65 maximum and the States are left to decide limits lower than that.
B. That does not explain the numerous freeways which are not interstates.
C. The CDH coordinates closely with all law enforcement agencies and especially the CHP.
> Again, you are the one
> trying to determine what a
> safe speed is.
The speed of traffic is the safe speed. If everyone is going 80, then someone going 55 is a menace. On a fast flowing freeway, people doing the speed limit are more likely to cause an accident from people trying to get around them than the people traveling at the speed of traffic.
Lets face it, like everything else government does, the stated purpose (which is usually benevolent sounding – i.e. feed the starving children, reduce traffic injuries) is almost never the real motivation behind creating some new “program” or implementing a new law. Lowered speed limits in the name of safety are an old ploy, just a way of producing revenue by creating a ridiculous low limit that is unrealistic and difficult to maintain – the common speed trap. These cameras are nothing more than a higher-tech version of the old gag with the motorcycle cop hiding behind the billboard. A cheap trick and nothing more than a revenue producing device. In some places they even sink as low as shortening yellow light times to trick drivers into running a red…dirty and low! The best way I have found to keep their thieving hands out of my pockets is to know where the cameras are and avoid them entirely when possible. The simplest way is to use your auto GPS unit and program it with camera and sped trap data you can get at a site like http://www.gpscameradetector.com.
#35 If everyone is going 80, then someone going 55 is a menace. On a fast flowing freeway, people doing the speed limit are more likely to cause an accident from people trying to get around them than the people traveling at the speed of traffic.
What?!!! So everyone violates the limit, refuses to obey the limit, and the one who obeys the limit is the menace because the violators are forced(???) to try to get around the one who is not violating so they can violate? You are A-MAZ-ING!
#37
Let’s try a simpler analogy that your mind can understand. If everyone is doing 65, which the purposes of this analogy, let us suppose is the posted speed limit, and someone is doing 40, the person doing 40 is a menace. They are creating a traffic hazard. Anyone doing substantially less, or more, than the flow of traffic is increasing the risk of an accident.
The reason they require regular traffic surveys on highways (think surface streets) in CA is specifically to stop this type of nonsense where the posted limit does not match the speed most people are driving and that process works great on highways. However, it does not apply to freeways where CHP and local revenue whoring localities have bullied the legislation into capping the speed at 65. Hell, there are parts the I-5 where the limit ought to be 100. If you are doing 80, you better be in slow lane because a semi will drive right over you.
Just look at Germany and their Autoban highway. As far as I know they still allow fast speeds which means that safety isn’t being compromised all that much. I guess Americans are just worse drivers than they are over there?
#38 “Hell, there are parts the I-5 where the limit ought to be 100. If you are doing 80, you better be in slow lane because a semi will drive right over you.”
I drive a semi and you don’t drive a semi over 65 mph in CA. The posted limit in ALL of California is 55 mph for big trucks (and autos/pickups/RV pulling trailers but nobody pays attention to this). You put your wallet at serious risk to speed in a truck in California because the speeding fines are not the same as for autos, they are more like 5-10 times higher. It is not unheard of for a fine of $800 for going 65-70 mph in some of the loneliest stretches of I-15, I-10 or I-40.
When I run CA I always try to stay around 60-63 mph along with the vast majority of other trucks. I would hazard the observation that 99.5% of all trucks running in CA never go above 70 mph. In addition, just about all trucks owned by the major trucking companies are governed around 65-68 mph.
When the rear view mirror was introduced to American autos, local law enforcement lambasted them much the same as this police chief does. It made it so much harder for the police to come up behind and pace you without your knowledge.
#38, Thomas,
Once again you missed the point. The upper limit is 65. Unless there is a lower limit than the vehicle traveling 40 is well within their right to travel on that highway.
Part of being on any road in the US, and indeed most of the civilized world, goes with the understanding you SHARE the highway.
It is clear that you have no intention of sharing the road and take the attitude that you own the road and everyone not driving as fast as you can get off the road. That only contributes to my high insurance premiums.
*
Your example of speed being a contributor is bogus. The faster the vehicle is traveling, the further it will travel in the time it takes the driver to respond. It also means that in your left turn example, the car turning could misjudge the speed and time he has to make the turn. Most red light runners do so because they know they could not safely stop in time.
#27 Fusion – “So you are fine with the murderer that also makes a claim that the police tricked him into not getting away.”
What the hell are you talking about?
“IT IS ILLEGAL TO SPEED!”
No one is arguing that it isn’t illegal to speed. What I’m saying is that photo radar does nothing to stop someone from speeding whereas a cop that pulls someone over does.
#43, Aki,
You stated that photo radar does not catch speeders. I say it does work. If you know you might end up being caught speeding and be assessed a fine you just might take that into consideration the next time the urge to speed overwhelms you.
Your equivalence that a warrantless search of my property is the same as a photo radar set-up is silly. Just as silly and ridiculous as is the murderer being tricked by the police.
Yet, that is exactly your argument, the police must be above board when they catch you breaking the law. If the police get the fingerprints or analyze the DNA from a murder scene, is that any different than catching you speeding with photo radar?
# 44 Fusion.
Ah! Yes, you’re correct. I misread Luc’s original comment – I retract my comment regarding marrantless searches. (My aplogies to Luc.)
As for the rest… re-read my comments. I never said that photo radar doesn’t “catch” the speeder. I said it doesn’t “stop” the speeder. There is a distinction. When the police pull over the speeder they are physically stopped. As well, points are issues against the speeders license so there’s potential for the license to be suspended.
With photo radar, the speeder is not physically stopped. The speeder receives a ticket in the mail days later with no points issued against their license. Under this model, the speeder can continue to speed for as long as he/she has money to pay for the photo radar tickets.
Does it stop the speeder? No. Does it generate revenue? Yes.
#42
Clearly you do not spend much time in traffic. Sharing has to do with mutual concern for safety. If everyone is doing 65, your privilege (since driving is not a right) to do 40 is putting other people at risk. Even the DMV manual states that it is safer to drive the speed of traffic than to necessarily go the exact speed of the limit. I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that have a clue and that means driving with the flow of traffic.
RE: Left turn example
Actually, my example is dead on. The person turning left has to account for the other vehicle’s speed whether too slow, too fast, or variable. The accident is caused by someone turning when it wasn’t clear. Speed will make the damage worse, but it is not the cause of the accident. If you really think that speed is the cause, then why not push for making the limit 10 MPH or for mandated governor’s on cars that prevent them from speeding?
Most cops will tell you that most speeding laws, not all, but most, are geared towards revenue generation or as an excuse to stop someone and not public safety.
#46
That should have read:
“Most cops will tell you that most speeding limits…”
Thomas,
I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that have a clue and that means driving with the flow of traffic.
Which translates as “You are perfectly comfortable with sharing the road with others that take a similar view of disregarding the law.”
The vehicle traveling slower than you has every right to be there and traveling at that speed. Why they are traveling slower is irrelevant; it could be because they are pulling a trailer, it is a heavily laden truck, the vehicle is having mechanical problems, it is a student or young driver, etc. It is not up to you to decide if they should or should not be allowed on the road.
Your excessive speed though, as you rightly point out, is a cause of concern when meeting up with someone going so much slower. YOU are the one unable to react in time to avoid them. And it is your speed that influences your reaction time.
What if instead of a slower vehicle, there is some debris on the road? That debris is now traveling 65 mph slower than you. Guess what? Hit the debris and it is almost always your fault for any damage. Not sharing the road and being prepared for the unexpected is the leading cause of accidents on freeways. If you can’t react in time because of your speed then guess what the root cause of the accident is?
*
Left Turn
If you judge the distance to the oncoming vehicle will take 6 seconds to reach the intersection yet is traveling 50% faster (ie 45 in a 30) then it will reach the intersection in 4 seconds. Bang, time enough for a collision.
Being that as it may, turning left into oncoming traffic is always a risk.
*
Most cops I know are just doing their assigned job. When I asked our local Sheriff (a neighbor) about a very similar point a few years back his response was illuminating. It was to the effect “After pulling one dead body from a wreck, it isn’t just a little over the limit anymore”. Something to think about the next time you get caught speeding.
#45, Aki,
Under this model, the speeder can continue to speed for as long as he/she has money to pay for the photo radar tickets.
Good point. It is precisely because there is no pullover that the fines are less and do not carry “points”. They also are assessed to the vehicle, the same as a parking ticket instead of the driver.
I don’t know about you but I can’t afford too many tickets. In fact, I don’t know anyone that can. If you can afford them, do you think having a cop stop you will make any difference?
People do illegal things thinking that they won’t get caught. Even you would think someone deliberately speeding, knowing they are going to get caught, is either an idiot or mentally unstable.
#51 Fusion
In 10 years driving in a city with photo radar I have received a whopping 2 photo radar tickets and have been pulled over exactly zero times. I don’t have what you’d call an impressive income but even I can afford a couple tickets a year. Hypothetically speaking, if points were being issued against my license which drove my insurance rates up and which put me in risk of losing my license, I might speed less. But that’s not the world we live in. Many (MANY) people have higher incomes than I do.
Do I think people who speed, knowing they are going to get caught, are idiots or mentally unstable? Maybe they are. But maybe they just don’t give a crap about the money. I bet they care whether they have a license at all though.
The fact that the D.C. area is showing such high rates of revenue would seem to indicate that there’s plenty of money and few who care about that money, floating around. If the D.C. police could show a dramatic reduction in revenue from photo radar, I might be willing to concede that the photo radar was working to reduce speeding. I suspect that the statistics show otherwise.
> Which translates as “You are perfectly
> comfortable with sharing the road with
> others that take a similar view of
> disregarding the law.”
No, I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that consider accident aversion to more important than following the letter of the law. In most circumstances, following the letter of the law does reduce accident risk but there are times when it does not. A driver with a clue knows the difference.
> The vehicle traveling slower than
> you has every right to be there and
> traveling at that speed.
Actually, no they don’t. First, no one has a right to be driving. Second, many cities actually impose speed minimums. For example, if memory serves Denver has a speed minimum of 40 MPH under optimal conditions. If the limit is 65 and everyone is doing 40 but someone is doing 65, that person driving substantially faster than the speed of traffic is as much a hazard as someone doing 40 when everyone else is doing 65.
> Why they are traveling slower
> is irrelevant; it could be because
> they are pulling a trailer, it is a
> heavily laden truck, the vehicle
> is having mechanical problems, it
> is a student or young driver, etc.
> It is not up to you to decide if
> they should or should not be
> allowed on the road.
As I stated above, no one has a right to be driving on the freeway. Second, IMO, if a truck cannot do the speed minimum, they shouldn’t be on the freeway. There was a particular two lane freeway grade near my house where trucks would do 20 up the grade during rush hour which caused massive traffic delays (easily added an hour to my commute) and yes accidents as people tried to get around the trucks. That is not sharing the road. That is causing massive traffic delays and accidents because they could not be bothered to change their schedule, lighten their load or take a different route.
> Your excessive speed though,
> as you rightly point out, is a cause
> of concern when meeting up with someone
> going so much slower.
No one said anything about excessive speed. In my example, suppose the limit is 65. If everyone is doing 65 except one person doing 40, that person is increasing the risk of an accident.
> YOU are the one unable to react
> in time to avoid them. And it is
> your speed that influences your
> reaction time.
There are number of reasons why reaction time is a bullshit argument. If reaction time is an issue, then the DMV ought to be testing for it. Second, there are numerous elderly drivers with awful reaction times even if everyone were doing 10 MPH. Third, an the end of the day speed does not cause the vast majority of accidents. Bad judgment relating to something other than speed causes the vast majority accidents. Speed simply exacerbates the damage.
> What if instead of a slower vehicle, there
> is some debris on the road? …
This example is completely irrelevant. It is also the case that the debris is traveling 40 MPH slower than you if you hit at 40..or 30 or 20… If road conditions call for slower speeds then driving substantially faster than the speed of traffic is *also* a hazard.
RE: Left Turn
Again, reaction time is a bullshit argument. Everyday, there are elderly people and sleep deprived people driving on the roads. No DMV that I’m aware of tests for reaction time. As I said, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what speed the oncoming car is traveling. If they are doing 100 or 10, the person turning left is obligated to wait until it is clear. Assuming that running a red is not part of the scenario, if the person turning left hits the oncoming car, they are at fault as they should be. The error in judgment was turning when it wasn’t clear.
RE: COP and “over the limit”
So, what about an accident at 65 as opposed to 55? What about 65 as opposed to 40? There is no question that speed exacerbates damage. The question is whether it caused the accident in the first place.
Actually #52 brings up an excellent point. If speed is viewed so badly then why are the fines not substantially higher? Why are they not equivalent to DUIs? It also brings into question as to why we don’t make the speed limit 10 MPH everywhere. After all, someone going 20 MPH more than doubles the amount of energy on impact.