No radar for local cops
The ban on the use of radar for municipal traffic enforcement in Pennsylvania should continue. There is no epidemic crisis of speeding, only an epidemic of politicians seeking more money from safe drivers.
Speed is a cause of about 5 percent of accidents, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Speeding as a cause of accidents in free-flowing traffic is rare, yet this is when most citations are written.
After 50 years of government propaganda and misinformation about highway safety, it's easy for our elected servants to declare we must give local police radar guns or everybody's going to die! In the end, the special interests profit from radar – radar manufacturers, politicians, police and the courts.
Posted speed limits are at the heart of this. What is the safe speed and who decides? Too often, they're set by politicians responding to citizen complaints, not engineering. A reasonable traffic limit is one in which the super majority of people obey. An engineering concept known as the 85th percentile very simply says that 85 out of 100 motor vehicles will normally travel at or below a speed which is reasonable and prudent.
But that makes the job of the police — to collect taxes for the government — very difficult.
The Highway Safety Administration found that 90 percent of posted speed limits are eight to 16 miles per hour too slow. Because uninformed and misled constituents complain about “speeders,” politicians push for arming local police with radar guns and keep limits too low. Unrealistic speed limits do not reduce accidents and may actually cause them.
Hunting down drivers with radar guns will not improve highway safety and unnecessary enforcement of too-low limits will foster contempt for the law. There is only one reason for radar — money. Call your legislators and tell them to keep the local ban on radar in Pennsylvania.
Berwyn, Chester County
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- It’s not personal
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- Cockpit safety stalled
- Seeking Christ in kids
- Amendment levels playing field
- More than one hero
- Anti-Israel bias
- The next wave?
- Out of ‘other people’s money’