I just might be The Man...

[GunMD]

Hmmm. Interesting. I was actually enjoying this thread right up until post #18. I'm not sure who's feelers got hurt first and why, but nothing in this entire thread seemed worthy of the sudden change in tone. Ian, I enjoyed reading your informative position on the issue of marked vs. unmarked vehicles. You have some good points. I also appreciate your service. Seriously, I'm not just saying that. I sure as hell don't want to do it, so I'm glad there are people like you (and my brother) who do. Thank you. As for your response to Toecutter...while he certainly doesn't need me to defend him, I do know him. I know that he too is a public servant and a big advocate of safety. I suspect that his comments were just as much tongue-in-cheek as you claim yours were, so I wouldn't let them bother you.

Thanks for your contribution to this thread...now don't let a rant at the end of it ruin the value of your earlier posts.

.02

 

[Joe2Lmaker]

Law enforcement can be very rewarding (saving someone's life, for example), ...

When you guys are making your greatest contributions, I'm sound asleep. Most responsible, contributing members of society are asleep in there beds when the trouble starts.

So, I don't see the rewarding part of your job. I don't see you dealing with drunken combative ********. I only see you when I'm driving down the road and you're cranking the revenue mill. I might be aware of your contributions on some subconscious level, but seeing you sneaking and hiding while your trying to catch me rolling down the road doesn't make me appreciate you. That's for damn sure!

 

[dcarver]

Ok everyone, take a deep breath and pause the fingers for a bit..

Let's remember the 'no personal attacks' rule, even in the heat of the moment. IMHO we're getting pretty close to violating that board rule.

For the record, Ian, I did and do get your humor and think I understand both viewpoints very well. I was fortunate enough to have experienced several civilian ride-alongs, one of which was in South Central LA. My perspectives of LEOS was forever changed to the positive after that event. And on the other side, I've not had a negative LEO encounter that really amounted to a hill of beans...

OK then boyz, play nice, k?

Hugs n Kisses

 

[GunMD]

OK then boyz, play nice, k?

Only if there's a wheelbarrow full of cold beer!

 

[Toecutter]

OK then boyz, play nice, k?

Only if there's a wheelbarrow full of cold beer!

And no roadside ditches....

 

[Ian Farlow]

Ok everyone, take a deep breath and pause the fingers for a bit..
Let's remember the 'no personal attacks' rule, even in the heat of the moment. IMHO we're getting pretty close to violating that board rule.

For the record, Ian, I did and do get your humor and think I understand both viewpoints very well. I was fortunate enough to have experienced several civilian ride-alongs, one of which was in South Central LA. My perspectives of LEOS was forever changed to the positive after that event. And on the other side, I've not had a negative LEO encounter that really amounted to a hill of beans...

OK then boyz, play nice, k?

Hugs n Kisses

Fair enough, and I appreciate the voice of calm amid the storm. :clapping:

 

[Patriot]

kewl, gentlemen all

whoosh :yahoo:

 

[Ian Farlow]

Says the man who has used his fireman's badge to get a break......
Ian, we all have our own issues and to try and argue yours would be a never ending thread.

By my count there are nearly 30 officers on the forum (Yes, some of us do pay attention). Each has tried to explain and some have been bitterly disappointed. We are on opposite sides of the glass wall and see and judge incidents from alternate viewpoints.

The hows and whys of traffic enforcement are a mystery to most of us. There is a vast difference to driving/riding at high rates of speed on congested or high traffic roadways and isolated lonely stretches of pavement. However, even if one should choose to enjoy the performance capabilities of their vehicle on an isolated road they should also understand they have chosen to violate the posted speed limit. Choices have consequences. AND, if one should happen to crash and require county services, those are paid for from the public budget. Fire, rescue, traffic control, time to write reports, etc., are expensive and can demand resources from other emergency or enforcement needs.

Of course, none of us like it when WE are caught.......I mean, WE have our reasons.

Very good point. I'll bring it back down a notch or two.

 

[Ian Farlow]

Hmmm. Interesting. I was actually enjoying this thread right up until post #18. I'm not sure who's feelers got hurt first and why, but nothing in this entire thread seemed worthy of the sudden change in tone. Ian, I enjoyed reading your informative position on the issue of marked vs. unmarked vehicles. You have some good points. I also appreciate your service. Seriously, I'm not just saying that. I sure as hell don't want to do it, so I'm glad there are people like you (and my brother) who do. Thank you. As for your response to Toecutter...while he certainly doesn't need me to defend him, I do know him. I know that he too is a public servant and a big advocate of safety. I suspect that his comments were just as much tongue-in-cheek as you claim yours were, so I wouldn't let them bother you.
Thanks for your contribution to this thread...now don't let a rant at the end of it ruin the value of your earlier posts.

.02

You're right, and I apologize for going off the deep end.

 

[Patriot]

this is another time and another shade of why I love this forum :clapping:

kudos to all you gentlemen :yahoo:

 

[Toecutter]

Says the man who has (once, upon LEO request) used his fireman's badge to get a break......

...and his Escort 8500 to avoid dozens of unscheduled roadside Emperial entanglements....

 

[Bounce]

I haven't read the whole thread (yet) but did want to comment on the marked/unmarked patrol vehicles issue.

--update: i did get past post #18 so maybe this will help back off on the heat a little and get back on original topic --

The following is as a father of 2 daughters, a husband, and the oldest son of an aging mother...

For years PDs have put out public service notices about not pulling over for vehicles of unknown "intent". That would include unmarked cars. The bogus cop ploy by criminals to gain access to victims is not exactly new news.

With that in mind, it makes justification of unmarked cars for traffic stops even more of a heated debate. Sure there's the "catch them acting normally" point that is completely understandable. But there's also the "who is this trying to pull me over?" issue too.

It would seem that the best of both worlds would be for an officer in an unmarked car, acting as the witness to an event, calling in a marked vehicle to make the actual stop. This would address the "catch 'em in the act" as well as the possbility of failure to stop because the driver was acting on PS announcements that advise driving to a PD before stopping.

I can understand both sides of this issue but personally feel that the safety of the driver (who can't tell if the unmarked car is truly a cop or not) trumps the convenience of the PD's ability to observe and stop from said unmarked vehicle.

If it could avoid the tasing (by the rare, adrenaline-pumped officer who's upset that the driver didn't pull over right away) of a driver (who drove to a PD or "well-lit public place" before stopping) it would be good, too.

 

[Auburn]

+1 GUNNY! I too am enjoying this read, Ian you have given me another insight into the law enforcement side.

I too have to re-read some things a few times before I understand what they are saying and how they mean it. Radman is classic, and gets me laughing all the time at the creative ways he can respond for example. And you are correct, there are a few who will bask LEO every chance they get, but with a little more time here you will figure out who they are and take their comments with a grain of salt.

And, Thank you for your service, I did almost 10 years in the Navy and have several friends that are currently in law enforcement.

 

[nofreeride]

A very interesting thread and kudos to all who can keep their cool on a controversial and sensitive subject.

That said, I will weigh in on my perspective as a motorist. I appreciate the LEO's and what I am going to complain about is no reflection on them, as I don't think they have much choice. Anyway, it seems as though the distribution of most traffic citations does not coincide with keeping the safety of the public as first priority. Most accidents crashes and dangerous traffic situations are not caused by excessive speed; the cause is usually something else. The speed of the vehicle(s) is directly proportionate to the severity of the crash. By forcing people to slow down (through speed limits and citations), we are simply masking the root causes of most crashes. I would like to see more enforcement for the types of behaviors that cause the crash in the first place. Examples: Driving slow in the left lane, racing, abrupt lane changes, driving while distracted (for any reason), tailgating, fill in the blank.

It seems that the emphasis is almost entirely on how fast you are going. This may have a lot to do with the technology of radar/laser and the ability to more easily prove such cut and dry violations. The system is broken.

 

[RTSR1/FJR]

I can honestly say that whenever I received an award from a LEO I pretty much earned it, except one. It was during Bike Week 2 yrs. ago here and I took off from a light and had my visor up through the intersection. Just past the intersection they pulled me over and awarded me my prize, even though I had pulled it down by then and only going 10 mph. That was my contribution to the Volusa County Sheriff dept. though. Seemed kind of ironic that all the Harley guys had no helmets, but I get pulled. I do have respect for LEO's tough, a job I wouldn't want. There's always one that give the rest a bad name though!

 

[Toecutter]

It seems that the emphasis is almost entirely on how fast you are going... The system is broken.

Depends on which end of the system you're on....

 

[madmike2]

Says the man who has (once, upon LEO request) used his fireman's badge to get a break......

...and his Escort 8500 to avoid dozens of unscheduled roadside Emperial entanglements....

Mine, too! But it's my conscious decision to respond to the readings on my Escort that tell me the gendarmes are on the prowl using that technology. As with you, I have read a very faint signal and decided they might be over a hill or around a corner and slowed to the posted limit. Most of the time I have been right, at least enough to continue to use the detector. It will never keep me from getting a ticket if I don't rationally determine to slow down. If one continues riding illegally because the signal wasn't "strong enough" one could be inviting the law enforcement personnel to issue a written speed evaluation.

OTH, I've used my "Spidey Sense" a couple of times and slowed because I "felt" it was a great opportunity for someone to hide and use instant-on and successfully obeyed the law when I rounded a corner to see the awaiting patrol car. (Example: Hwy 50 in Nevada where the long desert stretches approach the mountainous regions.)

As with your conclusion, Bob, I will continue to use mine.

 

[Ian Farlow]

With that in mind, it makes justification of unmarked cars for traffic stops even more of a heated debate. Sure there's the "catch them acting normally" point that is completely understandable. But there's also the "who is this trying to pull me over?" issue too.
It would seem that the best of both worlds would be for an officer in an unmarked car, acting as the witness to an event, calling in a marked vehicle to make the actual stop. This would address the "catch 'em in the act" as well as the possbility of failure to stop because the driver was acting on PS announcements that advise driving to a PD before stopping.

Definitely a good point and suggestion. Please bear in mind that in my case, I was not suggesting that I would work traffic on a regular basis. In my case, I would get out of the office on occasion and work accidents, take calls for service, and work traffic. I have never worked for an agency that actually used full-time unmarked traffic enforcement vehicles. I simply believe that completely restricting the use of unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement is not a productive measure.

That being said, I have had people not immediately stop for me because they didn't know who I was. I am fine with that as long as they don't speed up and/or start dodging traffic to put distance between me and them. If they do, I will chase them, but I will also call for a marked unit (specifically) to assist and take over the chase. That has never happened to me, by the way, and the driver I was trying to stop pulled over in a well lit, public location with witnesses. I completely understand why.

I also understand that there are bad cops out there who would go bonkers for someone doing that, and that's just sad. I wish that weren't the case.

 

[Ian Farlow]

Anyway, it seems as though the distribution of most traffic citations does not coincide with keeping the safety of the public as first priority. Most accidents crashes and dangerous traffic situations are not caused by excessive speed; the cause is usually something else. The speed of the vehicle(s) is directly proportionate to the severity of the crash. By forcing people to slow down (through speed limits and citations), we are simply masking the root causes of most crashes. I would like to see more enforcement for the types of behaviors that cause the crash in the first place. Examples: Driving slow in the left lane, racing, abrupt lane changes, driving while distracted (for any reason), tailgating, fill in the blank.
It seems that the emphasis is almost entirely on how fast you are going. This may have a lot to do with the technology of radar/laser and the ability to more easily prove such cut and dry violations. The system is broken.

I don't believe that speed is not the primary factor in most motor vehicle collisions, but of course, there are plenty of examples where speed wasn't the issue as well, and that is why I would enforce all traffic laws, not just speeding. Following too close is one of my biggest gripes. I have written close to as many following too close tickets as I have speeding tickets. The risks involved with driving that close to another vehicle, at any speed, is just too great.

I have stopped drivers for going too slow. That is a safety issue definitely. Heck, I have even stopped several people for doing paperwork/reading/shaving/putting on makeup while driving. I would always laugh when I would walk up to the vehicle and they would give the standard "what did I do officer?" while putting their paperwork down. One lady actually had paperwork spread out across the dash like a desk. She had no concept of what she was doing was dangerous to her and the rest of the motoring public, and got very, very angry when I ticketed her.

Ungh...

 

[Ian Farlow]

I can honestly say that whenever I received an award from a LEO I pretty much earned it, except one. It was during Bike Week 2 yrs. ago here and I took off from a light and had my visor up through the intersection. Just past the intersection they pulled me over and awarded me my prize, even though I had pulled it down by then and only going 10 mph. That was my contribution to the Volusa County Sheriff dept. though. Seemed kind of ironic that all the Harley guys had no helmets, but I get pulled. I do have respect for LEO's tough, a job I wouldn't want. There's always one that give the rest a bad name though!

Wait... I had to read this a few times, and I'm still not sure I understand it right. Are you saying you got a ticket because you had your visor flipped up (I assume on a full-face helmet)? Really? That's a bunch of crap! Granted, you are/were in a different state than I am now, but I just can't understand what law that would be that you violated?