Police in some states enforce speed laws more than in others. Some state police budgets depend more on citation income than others. Some of the mid-western states are known for using unmarked vehicles, whereas this is not done in California.

I propose a separate traffic enforcement division of the state police, entirely funded by traffic fines. I know this would be unpopular, for the same reason people think they have a right to avoid prosecution by using radar detectors. It is against their sense of "fair play." By the same token, they try to cover their license plates to prevent camera surveillance.

Excess speed (or, more accurately, velocity) is the most signifigant variable in the severity of damage and/or injury in a crash, but the overwhelming cause of "accidents" is driver inattention- simply not being focused on the task of driving: one of which sub-tasks is observing posted "speed" limits. It is probably statistically possible to correlate traffic violations with risk of accidents (as I'm sure insurance companies do as a matter of S.O.P.).

Most states and municialities do place an excessive reliance on traffic fines for general revenue (rather than spending the majority of said revenue on enhanced safety and road maintenence), and this does serve to confuse the issue.

In fact, very strict enforcement of "speed" limits does result in better compliance, and better traffic safety, because drivers who pay attention to traffic cops also tend to pay more attention to their driving.

I belong to the camp that thinks drivers who use radar detectors are paying more attention than most, thus are safer than most other drivers, regardless of their compliance with "speed" limits.

Speed is the proper word, not velocity, which is a vector, which includes direction of travel. Accident damage increases with the square of the speed.

Paying attention to a radar detector is not the same as paying attention to road conditions, and greater speed, regardless of the cause of the accident, greatly increases the probability of fatality.

Your argument is similar to that made by auto clubbers in Germany, who maintain that the accident rate is lower with higher speed limits. This is nonsensical when applied to the typical American freeway or turnpike with its many onramps, mergers, etc.

I would definitely agree with having a separate traffic enforcement agency, as opposed to police handling speeding tickets. It just seems like a complete waste of a fully trained police officer to put them on a highway catching speeders. I think I could safely train someone to be a "speed cop" in about a morning. They don't even need guns really. If someone flees, get their plate number and let the actual cops chase them. It would be rare anyway.

But thats besides the point...I just think the current system is set-up to NOT stop speeders. It's instead set-up to perpetuate a steady stream of revenue for the gov't. People are given a little bit of leeway, with the understanding that some people will go too far and consequently fund things. Clever, but not exactly "safety-first."

When strict enforcement of speed limits occurs a lot of people will contest the tickets. This floods the court with cases and takes patrol officers off the street and consequently the judge tells the DA to not prosecute anything that's "close", meaning about 5 MPH or so over the posted limit. That's where the arbitrary limit comes from.

Hyenuf, I think what you're saying is true, but it is only true given today's accepted conditions. What I'm proposing is changing the norms of police and court behavior. If police routinely gave out tickets to small-time speeders and judges prosecuted them, small-time speeding would see a decrease. The increase in court-clogging would be short-term. That's my belief anyway.

As much as you want to change the police & courts you cannot stop the drivers who receive tickets from challenging them in court, at least not in the USA.

Anyone who challenges a ticket meets with the DA or his representative for a pre-trial conference. You try to come to a compromise to avoid going to court. If you cannot get to a compromise then you have two options, plead guilty or have your case heard in court. You can even ask for a jury trial if you so desire.

Your lawyer presents your sob story about not being able to control your speed to that close of tolerance due to wind, weather, and equipment variables to a jury. It would be heard by people with similar problems and experiences, some who may feel the laws are too strict to begin with. You would get the ticket dismissed. The court has had it's time taken up over issues that the judges feel are a waste of their time. This won't happen too many times before the judge instructs the DA to dismiss the tickets rather than go to trial.

Hyenuf,Thanks for the refresher. I'm currently employed by the NYS Court system, and see firsthand everyday the clogs you speak of. Will this clog things more? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I suggest that people would adjust. You would no longer drive with the idea that you can "get away" with going a certain speed. I'd in fact predict that tickets would go down, as well as court appearances.Regardless of what happens, it can't be much worse than now.

A gamble that might clog the courts a little more is worth it in my mind (and i have to deal with the clogs personally!) if it will potentially improve the traffic and safety situations for everyone, and who knows, un-clog the courts!

"Vector" being defined as "a quantity having direction and magnitude," magnitude (scalar absolute value) being "speed" and direction being "where the front of my car is pointed," that does pretty well describe how I drive my car (most of the time, I hope).

Actually, most speeding tickets I've seen do indicate direction of travel (e.g., "Eastbound on 38th Street"), thus the citation does indicate a vector; that is, velocity.