Cops going undercover to nab... speeders?

[NorthSideSox72]

Per an article in the Trib, some Chicago suburbs have started using some serious undercover tactics to nab speeders. They are dressing up as construction workers, lawn mower riders, citizens on porches, even street beggars, just to enforce traffic ordinances.

 

Here is the question for the board... do you think these sort of tactics are acceptable? Are they a good idea?

 

As a general rule, I think that police departments (particularly suburban and small town ones) have a habit of doing too much traffic enforcement, and not enough real police work (active patrol, community contact, investigations). On the other hand, someone going 20 over in a school zone most certainly creates a hazard, and should be dealt with. So I guess I am OK with it, particularly in those high-risk areas. But I think it needs to remain in those high risk areas only.

 

[Texsox]

Tossing this log on the campfire. My guess is the average citizen is more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than being robbed, assaulted, etc. So those people actively involved in public safety should spend time in the areas that would decrease the most likely threat to body and property. So aggressive enforcement of traffic laws make sense.

 

The undercover part seems silly and cost ineffective. Perhaps there is more to the story like a specific problem at a specific location?

[NorthSideSox72]

Tossing this log on the campfire. My guess is the average citizen is more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than being robbed, assaulted, etc. So those people actively involved in public safety should spend time in the areas that would decrease the most likely threat to body and property. So aggressive enforcement of traffic laws make sense.

 

The undercover part seems silly and cost ineffective. Perhaps there is more to the story like a specific problem at a specific location?

Read the article, it talks about targeting the enforcement to areas of accidents or school zones.

 

As for the undercover part being cost ineffective... I don't see how. A cop costs the same in jeans and a t-shirt as he/she does in a uniform.

 

[Texsox]

Read the article, it talks about targeting the enforcement to areas of accidents or school zones.

 

As for the undercover part being cost ineffective... I don't see how. A cop costs the same in jeans and a t-shirt as he/she does in a uniform.

 

A big ol cruiser sitting there deters a lot more drivers than a guy washing his car. Highly visible would seem to deter more than undercover making highly visible more cost effective.

 

Now if we perhaps start talking the income side of writing more tickets, perhaps the equation changes.

[NorthSideSox72]

A big ol cruiser sitting there deters a lot more drivers than a guy washing his car. Highly visible would seem to deter more than undercover making highly visible more cost effective.

 

Now if we perhaps start talking the income side of writing more tickets, perhaps the equation changes.

Do you really think that article was written because the journalist went looking for this story?

 

No chance. These departments are probably BEGGING papers to have articles like this. One of the cops quoted in there even said it, pretty much - they want people to think there is a cop on every corner. Only way to do that is for people to be aware of these tactics. Therefore, as word spreads, it works quite nicely as a deterrent.

 

[Texsox]

Do you really think that article was written because the journalist went looking for this story?

 

No chance. These departments are probably BEGGING papers to have articles like this. One of the cops quoted in there even said it, pretty much - they want people to think there is a cop on every corner. Only way to do that is for people to be aware of these tactics. Therefore, as word spreads, it works quite nicely as a deterrent.

 

Agreed. But the conditioning will fade over time as you pass more and more lawn mowers who are not undercover cops. Meanwhile, people see fewer and fewer cops patrolling the beat . . .

[Soxy]

In general I think this is a pretty good idea. I think it's especially good in construction and school zones. I also think the efficacy (and worthwhile-ness) of this would depend a lot on which suburb we're talking about. If I lived in Aurora or Joliet, I think I'd rather have the cops on the beat. But in lower crime rate places, I think it would be worthwhile.

[EvilMonkey]

Like what Soxy said, if it is already a low crime area, I guess there is no harm. But with the exception of school zones, speeding should be at the low end of the priority scale. it is just a money making scheme, just like Chicago's traffic cameras. And just like the increased fines in construction zones.

[GoSox05]

I think police in the chicagoland area spend to much time with traffic. Than again i've seen some nasty accidents on I-57 and I don't if its people driving to fast or what. I don't know. I dont like them dressing up undercover though. unless they have big mustaches. Than its cool.

[Soxy]

Like what Soxy said, if it is already a low crime area, I guess there is no harm. But with the exception of school zones, speeding should be at the low end of the priority scale. it is just a money making scheme, just like Chicago's traffic cameras. And just like the increased fines in construction zones.

I disagree about the construction zone thing. When workers are present it always makes me just nuts when people are still zooming around so fast. I do get irked when you have the work zone speed limit, but no workers. Regardless, I don't speed in construction zones--it's too dangerous.

[EvilMonkey]

I disagree about the construction zone thing. When workers are present it always makes me just nuts when people are still zooming around so fast. I do get irked when you have the work zone speed limit, but no workers. Regardless, I don't speed in construction zones--it's too dangerous.

not too get too far off on a tangent, but I remember a few years back when they first started the increased fines in construction zones, it was a kneejerk reaction to a worker being killed by a speeder. They failed to mention that the speeder was drunk. or that of the 7 previous fatalities in the previous 7 years, 6 of those were also from drunk drivers, and one was from a worker who backed over a coworker. So regardless of the fines, etc, the drunks were going to speed anyway. So all that fine does is screw you or me if we happen to be going fatser than 45 and a cop was bored. or we get nailed by a f***ing camera, which is also bull. It is revenue generation under the guise of worker safety.

[BigSqwert]

not too get too far off on a tangent, but I remember a few years back when they first started the increased fines in construction zones, it was a kneejerk reaction to a worker being killed by a speeder. They failed to mention that the speeder was drunk. or that of the 7 previous fatalities in the previous 7 years, 6 of those were also from drunk drivers, and one was from a worker who backed over a coworker. So regardless of the fines, etc, the drunks were going to speed anyway. So all that fine does is screw you or me if we happen to be going fatser than 45 and a cop was bored. or we get nailed by a f***ing camera, which is also bull. It is revenue generation under the guise of worker safety.

I tend to agree with your views on this.

[GoSox05]

not too get too far off on a tangent, but I remember a few years back when they first started the increased fines in construction zones, it was a kneejerk reaction to a worker being killed by a speeder. They failed to mention that the speeder was drunk. or that of the 7 previous fatalities in the previous 7 years, 6 of those were also from drunk drivers, and one was from a worker who backed over a coworker. So regardless of the fines, etc, the drunks were going to speed anyway. So all that fine does is screw you or me if we happen to be going fatser than 45 and a cop was bored. or we get nailed by a f***ing camera, which is also bull. It is revenue generation under the guise of worker safety.

 

 

If a coworker of mine ever ran me over. I would be pissed.

[kapkomet]

If a coworker of mine ever ran me over. I would be pissed.

Or dead.

 

 

[Texsox]

We have developed a system of punishments in this country that is based on a scale. The faster you speed, the more you pay. The more dangerous the location, the more you pay. Same with theft, assault, and every other crime. I don't have a problem with increasing fines in various "zones".

[NorthSideSox72]

not too get too far off on a tangent, but I remember a few years back when they first started the increased fines in construction zones, it was a kneejerk reaction to a worker being killed by a speeder. They failed to mention that the speeder was drunk. or that of the 7 previous fatalities in the previous 7 years, 6 of those were also from drunk drivers, and one was from a worker who backed over a coworker. So regardless of the fines, etc, the drunks were going to speed anyway. So all that fine does is screw you or me if we happen to be going fatser than 45 and a cop was bored. or we get nailed by a f***ing camera, which is also bull. It is revenue generation under the guise of worker safety.

I'd say its both.

 

Just remember, the cop doesn't get that money from the ticket. Heck, even the police department itself gets little or no money out of it. The money goes to courts, or to state funds to be redistributed according to their whims.

 

[Texsox]

I'd say its both.

 

Just remember, the cop doesn't get that money from the ticket. Heck, even the police department itself gets little or no money out of it. The money goes to courts, or to state funds to be redistributed according to their whims.

 

More money funneling in is more money to spend. To deny that all municipality workers, including the cops, do not benefit, seems a tough argument to win.

[NorthSideSox72]

More money funneling in is more money to spend. To deny that all municipality workers, including the cops, do not benefit, seems a tough argument to win.

They may benefit indirectly, but in my experience, it is so indirect that no motivation exists at that level. but, if the department itself has policies about quotas (which are not pervasive), then there is that motivation. And the quotas, if they are there, are likely pushed by entities outside the department.

 

[Texsox]

They may benefit indirectly, but in my experience, it is so indirect that no motivation exists at that level. but, if the department itself has policies about quotas (which are not pervasive), then there is that motivation. And the quotas, if they are there, are likely pushed by entities outside the department.

 

How is a traffic cop reviewed? If he works a week and writes one ticket, isn't someone wondering what he's doing?

[GoSox05]

Or dead.

 

 

well I work in an office so If I didn't die, I think I would be pissed or very confused.

[kapkomet]

well I work in an office so If I didn't die, I think I would be pissed or very confused.

Oh, so it's hard to get ran over if you were a construction worker, because you're in an office. I get it now.

[NorthSideSox72]

How is a traffic cop reviewed? If he works a week and writes one ticket, isn't someone wondering what he's doing?

Well, my experience was in a department where the number of citations written was not a performance hurdle. It was noted, but not part of your performance, unless you were at an extreme (none might be a problem, but so would too many). I suppose in some sleepy little suburbs or towns, some departments may use that as a performance gauge. But the majority of departments I am familiar with, it was either not part of evaluation at all, or it was some small thing. There are some departments where its a bigger deal I am sure.

 

[Texsox]

Well, my experience was in a department where the number of citations written was not a performance hurdle. It was noted, but not part of your performance, unless you were at an extreme (none might be a problem, but so would too many). I suppose in some sleepy little suburbs or towns, some departments may use that as a performance gauge. But the majority of departments I am familiar with, it was either not part of evaluation at all, or it was some small thing. There are some departments where its a bigger deal I am sure.

 

So there is a normal range that cops would need to fall into? So, right or wrong, they do need to write tickets to keep their jobs? Until we see a dramatic reduction in traffic crimes, I don't see a problem with expecting cops to write tickets.

[GoSox05]

Oh, so it's hard to get ran over if you were a construction worker, because you're in an office. I get it now.

 

 

I was just cracking a joke. Dude if you have a problem with me, do me a favor and leave me alone.

[NorthSideSox72]

So there is a normal range that cops would need to fall into? So, right or wrong, they do need to write tickets to keep their jobs? Until we see a dramatic reduction in traffic crimes, I don't see a problem with expecting cops to write tickets.

Not really what I said. Some departments, its irrelevant. Other departments, its looked at casually. Yet others, there is an actual quota or range. That final scenario is, in my experience, the rarity.

 

I have no problem with tickets, but I do have a problem with requiring certain numbers of them.