Talk:Speed trap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a wikiproject dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
I remember several years ago reading in a magazine about such problems. They alerted motorists of speed traps where the law was very strictly enforced, and instead of safety or any other alturistic goals, but instead as a means of making money.
- JesseG 03:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, by the way one such trap exists in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. On Ellis Blvd, there is a stop sign that is not easily visible. I wound up running this stop sign because I could not see it because it was so badly obstructed. I got pulled over and charged $42 for that mistake. I wrote to the city a while later over my concerns about that stop but the city refused to do anything about that stop sign.
- JesseG 03:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] NPOV violation?
The whole tenor of this article seems to be "sneaky police / money-grubbing local authorities" bad -- law-breaking speedsters good. -- Picapica 00:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit it for balance, although I feel the "sneaky police" mindset is appropriate due to a) the fact that this is an American article and the writer expresses common American sentiment, and b) the evidence strongly indicates that speed traps have never been about road safety, not even 100 years ago.
- AAA defines "traffic trap" as a location with "... traffic enforcement measures and practices which are designed to raise revenue rather than prevent crashes or where there is evidence that enforcement is not justified by sound engineering principles." They've only designated two such traffic traps, both of which are listed on the page. Perhaps the definition at the top could use a bit of reworking to better fit that definition, since most of the examples approach the subject from that angle. WarpFlyght 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed worldwide perspective gripe tag
I am removing the worldwide perspective gripe tag from the article. If this article lacks worldwide perspective , it is because of omission, not becasue of intent. If you feel this article needs more perspective, add it, don't gripe.
Furthermore, I am also removing this tag because the poster failed to clarify his reasoning in the talk page. The gripe tag and its associated category instruct users to post the rationale for their gripes on the talk page. See Limited_geographic_scope category for more info.
Please add worldwide info instead of griping. And please post your reasoning on this page before posting another gripe tag.
Nova SS 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed neutrality gripe tag
I removed the neutrality gripe tag because the posted failed to follow procedure. Per Wikipedia's POV resolution page, you must "on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled 'NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]'. Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."
Furthermore, the poster used the wrong tag. If you are griping about a particular section, use the section NPOV gripe tag, not the one for the whole article.
Nova SS 04:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed "This means that speed limits are enforced substantially more than any other moving violation." This seems to be analysis and not reporting. Also it misses an obvious objection: perhaps violations of speed limits are substatially more common than any other moving violation, and enforcement is in line or even lax.
Christian Campbell 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I have toned down the article a bit from the distinct libertarian bias it previously showed. Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anecdotal
Many of the examples seem to be just anecdotal. While the France and UK sections seem general to whole countries, the entire section under US examples is just a bunch of random little small towns. If somebody wants to make an article just about examples of speed trap towns in the US, this would fit in there. But I think that the info on this page should be more general, not just a few anecdotal examples. --Lurlock 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look in the more general sections above before the by country list. This was probably more clear before the France and United Kingdom sections were added, but everything thats in the general sections pertain to what is considered a speed trap in the US. Jon 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other states have anti-speed trap legislation
Unforunately, I don't have the sources on hand; but Tennessee has one that compares the percentage of money coming in from moving violations to all sources of revenue to the town, and if the percentage is too high (33%?), that city is in violation of the anti-speed trap law. I've heard of other states with similar statues. Jon 19:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] St. Paul, Minnesota speed trap
Having driven the 35E stretch in question hundreds of times, I am surprised by the characterization of it in this article. My impression was that the traffic police rarely give out tickets for people exceeding the absurdly low 45 mph limit as long as they aren't eggregiously speeding. The claim that a disproportionate number of tickets are given to less-than-aware drivers demands a citation. Who is claiming this and how do they know? --ScienceApologist 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 22% claim
Surely a source should be included for the claim of speed traps reducing road deaths by 22% in France? Similar statistics in the UK are very contentious, ie. it is often claimed that such a reduction is not linked to speed enforcement.
Sorry I meant 20%!
