Most Over Aggressive Traffic Enforcement In Your Area?

[d4g4m]

Top honors, given by the AAA, for most aggressive traffic enforcement is 'Waldo FL' A small section of U.S. 301 passes through that town and it has been tagged as a 'speed trap'. So much so that when entering the area, a billboard tells you so. And if they're not giving out speeding tickets, they park a truck on the road shoulder with a police car behind it with flashing lights. If you don't move to the left lane, there is another police car 1/8th a mile that will pull you over for not changing lanes for the police vehicle.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

We don't have many speed traps around here, so I guess this is the way they make their money.

The cops in Ohio and Michigan only look at you when you are driving more than 10 over the posted speed limit. They ignore every other traffic offense.

[Patricius Maximus]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

But revenue generation feels SO much better than "I violated a traffic law and got caught because I wasn't paying attention or I thought the same law shouldn't apply to me that applies to everyone else and it couldn't possibly be my own fault that I got a ticket."

Revenue generation is exactly what it is. You advocate blind loyalty obedience to government edicts even if they are illegitimate, immoral, or just plain unreasonable; this kind of blatant stupidity never ceases to amaze me. A bad practice does not transform into a good practice because the government says so. No motorist that I am aware of is asking for any special treatment - laws which are unreasonable and an anathema to the public should not be obeyed and shouldn't be applied against anyone.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Doesn't seem over the top to me, at all, for them to step up enforcement of a law that is being ignored and causing injury and death to the citizens of Mountain View.

Given your apparent worship of the law, just what would you consider over the top? From what I've seen and heard there are hardly ever any pedestrians in the crosswalk, and there is no reason for the crosswalk to even be there except for the purpose of fleecing drivers, who know that the crosswalk shouldn't be there and act accordingly, much like they do for underposted speed limits and overused stop signs. It would be easier and more reasonable for pedestrians to use the other crosswalk 50 feet away that is part of an intersection.

And by the way, why should drivers be required to come to a dead stop if there's a pedestrian present in the crosswalk? Yielding the right of way (and stopping only if necessary) should be sufficient in the case of a crosswalk. That's the rule at most crosswalks I encounter, and I haven't seen rampant carnage on the streets .

[TexasHorseLady]

I'm sure that the pedestrians who, in this specific community, have been killed or injured by drivers who apparently share your worship of the idea that if you don't like a law, you shouldn't try to change it, you should just ignore it, would disagree with you that the law is "illegitimate, immoral, or just plain unreasonable". (Really, you apply this to such things as yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk and speed limits? REALLY? A bit over the top, don't you think?)

I don't advocate blind loyalty to government edicts, by the way. I advocate taking action to change those that I feel are worthy of being changed, and NOT pretending, if I decide to ignore laws that I find inconvenient, that I'm not the one who's doing something wrong. Big, BIG difference.

[texdav]

So it only counts when you fail to stop for a non-decoy in the cross walk? have you thought they have had companies of cars failing to stop. its a violation no matter who you fail to stop for Its not a trap but a opportunity and to catch those who are doing it. What's hard about stopping as required?