Police allowing nosy neighbors to borrow radar guns

[Fash]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/ne ... 23.art.htm

Speeders beware. Your neighbors might have you on their radar. That's the message police departments across the country are trying to send by loaning residents radar guns and turning them into neighborhood speed watchers.

Volunteers can't ticket the drivers they catch breaking the speed limit, but their reports can result in warning letters being sent by police, depending on how fast the drivers were going.

Police say the program is worth it if it can make even a few motorists obey speed limits. "It's one more element of enforcing speed," says Lt. Daniel Furseth of the DeForest Police Department in Wisconsin.

For the past year, the village has allowed residents to borrow a battery-operated radar gun for a week or two, sit on their front lawns and record the speeds of passing motorists.

Typically, a warning letter is sent when speeds are 13 mph over the limit, but it depends on the residential area, Furseth says.

The police department has sent out a couple dozen warning letters, he says. "One parent called and was glad we sent a letter," Furseth says. "But it's not always the kids (who are speeding) — it's the soccer moms, too."

Elsewhere:

•Residents in Loveland, Ohio, are invited to sign up in teams of two or three to use the Stalker II, a hand-held, battery-operated radar gun.

•In the Chicago suburb of Naperville, Ill., residents affiliated with homeowners associations use the radar guns. "Some people seemed surprised. Some took notice and slowed down," says Bob Fischer, director of the Naperville Area Homeowners Confederation. "Others were angry that we were interfering with their inherent right to get to the train station — or back home — as quickly as possible."

•In Shawnee, Kan., a suburb of Kansas City, police allow residents to use radar guns on residential streets that are posted 25 mph or less, police Sgt. Doug Orbin says. The volunteer must stay in his or her vehicle while using the radar gun, he says.

•This week, the police department in The Dalles, Ore., started taking names of interested citizens who want to be neighborhood speed watchers.

If you have nothing better to do with your time, why not be a complete shithead and fuck with your own neighbors?

[Boogahz]

I do not feel that the information should be used for anything other than determining where "official" speed traps should be, but I do see how citizen involvement can help to maintain safety on neighborhood streets. The hill I live on has a speed limit of 35mph, but I swear there are people going down it at 60+. When they first put the stop light at the bottom of the hill, I used to hear at least one accident a day.

If you have nothing better to do with your time, why not be a complete shithead and fuck with your own neighbors?

Kind of like the shitheads fucking with the safety of the neighborhood they are flying through?

[Funkmasterr]

Give me a break boo..

The police spend entirely too much time and money giving out speeding citations, the last thing we need is more of our tax money being spent to buy citizens radar guns.

[Boogahz]

Give me a break boo..

The police spend entirely too much time and money giving out speeding citations, the last thing we need is more of our tax money being spent to buy citizens radar guns.

Who said anything about additional taxes being spent on them? The article quoted indicates people being able to basically check out the radar guns. I would assume that not returning them would result in the person paying for it themselves. Do you think that all Police Dept's have just enough radar's to put in each car?

[Funkmasterr]

Give me a break boo..

The police spend entirely too much time and money giving out speeding citations, the last thing we need is more of our tax money being spent to buy citizens radar guns.

Who said anything about additional taxes being spent on them? The article quoted indicates people being able to basically check out the radar guns. I would assume that not returning them would result in the person paying for it themselves. Do you think that all Police Dept's have just enough radar's to put in each car?

No, but I can't imagine they have dozens upon dozens of them just laying around in a closet somewhere either, and if they do that doesn't make me feel any better about the situation.

[Fash]

When they first put the stop light at the bottom of the hill, I used to hear at least one accident a day.

Heh... I guess that stop light made it less safe then didn't it?... Were there any before the stop light? Unnecessary changes are also a pet peeve of mine when nothing has actually happened to bring it about.

If you have nothing better to do with your time, why not be a complete shithead and fuck with your own neighbors?

Kind of like the shitheads fucking with the safety of the neighborhood they are flying through?

That's a relative term, safety... are there accidents? close-calls? is anyone getting hurt? If not, I don't see the problem... They aren't shitheads because they're comfortable driving at a higher speed. Autobahn, anyone?

[Boogahz]

The autobahn is not a residential street. The examples in the article you posted are mainly in suburbs, and I really doubt the people are being authorized to sit on any interstate highway running through the cities to do this. The alternative (and more costly) can be installing road humps, and traffic islands which seem to be popping up way too much around Austin.

As for the light at the bottom of the hill, it used to be a T intersection with only the road that ended having a stop sign. When the road was extended to provide access to new home/apt development, a streetlight was needed.

Also, the number of auto-pedestrian accidents around here seems to have gone up quite a bit, but I think more of that has to do with lazy people crossing streets wherever they feel like it rather than at crosswalks.

[Aslanna]

I agree. Autobahn wha? How is that even relevant. I'm fairly certain there arent crosswalks and stop signs on the the autobahn. I don't see a problem with this sort of thing in RESIDENTIAL AREAS where kids can be playing. Caveat to that being the warning letters don't lead to something else such as an official citation. These volunteers aren't actual law enforcement officials afterall.

[lmnt9]

When they first put the stop light at the bottom of the hill, I used to hear at least one accident a day.

Heh... I guess that stop light made it less safe then didn't it?... Were there any before the stop light? Unnecessary changes are also a pet peeve of mine when nothing has actually happened to bring it about.

If you have nothing better to do with your time, why not be a complete shithead and fuck with your own neighbors?

Kind of like the shitheads fucking with the safety of the neighborhood they are flying through?

That's a relative term, safety... are there accidents? close-calls? is anyone getting hurt? If not, I don't see the problem... They aren't shitheads because they're comfortable driving at a higher speed. Autobahn, anyone?

So hypothetically speaking, you would be fine with your kids playing out in front of your house while I speed down the street at 60mph because I feel comfortable about it? I hope you don't or ever have kids.

[Fash]

Yep... My kids won't be playing in the fucking street, that I can assure you!

"Comfortable" also means you're in control, alert, and able to react.

Do you live in my neighborhood? Are your kids the assholes on skateboards who refuse to move out of the way except leaving a barely car wide path? Jesus Christ... If there's a car coming, get the fuck OFF the road!

edit: if you have some dickhead tearing ass on your street... note the make/model/plate and call the cops. let them talk to him.

[Aslanna]

Yep... My kids won't be playing in the fucking street, that I can assure you!

"Comfortable" also means you're in control, alert, and able to react.

Do you live in my neighborhood? Are your kids the assholes on skateboards who refuse to move out of the way except leaving a barely car wide path? Jesus Christ... If there's a car coming, get the fuck OFF the road!

Don't be dense. Kids are kids and they accidently could run out into the road. And that has nothing to do with "playing in the street" or not moving when cars come. I have seen those idiots and I agree they probably deserve to be hit.

edit: if you have some dickhead tearing ass on your street... note the make/model/plate and call the cops. let them talk to him.

Wouldn't that indicate that I had nothing better better to do with my time and wanted to be a complete shithead and fuck with my own neighbors?

The point is you shouldn't be speeding through residential areas. If receiving a 'warning letter' is the worst that happens from that consider yourself lucky.

[Boogahz]

edit: if you have some dickhead tearing ass on your street... note the make/model/plate and call the cops. let them talk to him.

Did you miss the entire point of the article that you posted, or was this edited to show that you finally "got it?"

[Fash]

Well... thats 1 person, so noting the make/model or knowing who it is, that's one thing... sitting there with a radar detector and clocking everyone is different, don't you think?

[Boogahz]

Well... thats 1 person, so noting the make/model or knowing who it is, that's one thing... sitting there with a radar detector and clocking everyone is different, don't you think?

Not at all. That is why the article specifically mentioned that they were not sending warnings to everyone.

Typically, a warning letter is sent when speeds are 13 mph over the limit, but it depends on the residential area, Furseth says.

[Fash]

They weren't sending warnings, but they were still clocking them all and recording everything... if you don't see the difference there, I'll fess up and agree with you. I missed the point of the article, policing your own neighbors is awesome and should be encouraged, privacy be damned.

How about we loan out Breathalizers too? How about volunteer neighbors at your local bar, testing people as they leave, and calling the cops if they drive? That sounds like a great idea and I could see it really taking off! You can refuse the test, but if you drive you'll probably get the cops called on you anyways, and you can't get angry over it and hit the person because that's assault. Although, would misdemeanor assault and a ride home from the cops be better than a DUI?

With a hefty deposit, we could loan out K-9 dogs to do-gooder volunteers who will troll the malls and social hotspots, filming and reporting anyone that interests the dogs.

Please, volunteer to peek in your neighbors windows, make sure they aren't abusing their wives or children.

[Aslanna]

Holy shit you may be even more paranoid than your brother. Who even said they were their neighbors? A lot of vehicles pass through residential areas that are driven by people who don't even reside there. I'd think it being your neighborhood would more incline one to follow the traffic laws to begin with.

[Aabidano]

They weren't sending warnings, but they were still clocking them all and recording everything... if you don't see the difference there, I'll fess up and agree with you. I missed the point of the article, policing your own neighbors is awesome and should be encouraged, privacy be damned.

This isn't a privacy issue, this is a don't drive like a douchebag in the neighborhood issue. You want privacy? Don't break the law and draw attention to yourself.

[Sueven]

I'm kind of with Fash on this one, although without the apocalyptic overtones.

There are all kinds of exceedingly troubling problems with citizen over-involvement with law enforcement.

I readily admit that allowing neighbors to check out radar guns doesn't cause many problems, and probably helps the cause of safety. It's more a slippery slope problem than anything.

Justifications like Aabidano's above, as well as others on this thread, sound stunningly like the "you wouldn't mind being wiretapped if you WEREN'T A TERRORIST" arguments that get thrown around. Claiming that protecting your privacy is worthless because privacy itself is worthless if you have nothing to hide is not an acceptable argument as far as I'm concerned.

[Boogahz]

Claiming that protecting your privacy is worthless because privacy itself is worthless if you have nothing to hide is not an acceptable argument as far as I'm concerned.

What privacy are you trying to protect? Seriously, if you are speeding through a residential area, the people living there already know. If you are worried about them finding out that it was YOU that was speeding through the area, it will all boil down to local/state laws regarding whether or not that is public information. In many states, I can find out who owns a vehicle through public means already whether I have a radar gun or not. From what this article says, the citizens would not be sending the letters.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "if you aren't a terrorist" speech that midnyte and some others are so great at making here. This has to do with you, the driver, putting a community at risk due to your behavior. This is not the government stepping in to analyze where, when, and how every driver is behaving on public roads just because they MIGHT be doing something wrong.

[Aabidano]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "if you aren't a terrorist" speech that midnyte and some others are so great at making here. This has to do with you, the driver, putting a community at risk due to your behavior.

Not even a slippery slope topic IMO, more along the lines of the neighborhood watch programs that have existed for years with good results.

The police don't have the resources to be everywhere, this could be a decent deterrent that doesn't tie an officer up to monitor a residential area. An extra radar gun is much cheaper than an extra police officer.

[Fash]

No, it's not an acceptable solution. Install speed bumps if you have issues in an area. This volunteer crap will only take up more police time dealing with the volunteers.... look people, call when there's an issue worth calling over... don't put up a net and report every little thing. Odds are, you're over-reacting.

[Boogahz]

So, rather than having neighborhood residents help with their own safety, you now want to call on city crews to install speed bumps/road humps/traffic islands/signage/etc.? I think that you are overestimating the cost of resources being devoted to this type of project.

Here are some examples of what has been used in Texas for several years for litterers and smoking vehicles:

Report a litterer form

Report a smoking vehicle program

Many of these types of form send out an automated letter to the registered owner of the vehicle being reported. There is no "privacy" issue involved, and the man-power for follow up is probably very low. I sent out one of the litterer forms for my mom once when we were trying to see exactly how it was handled. She received a small package in the mail explaining why throwing trash out on the side of the road is bad, along with a small trash bag to keep in the car with "Don't Mess with Texas" on it. Nobody gave her any kind of ticket, and nothing was added to her driving record because of it.

[Aabidano]

Odds are, you're over-reacting.

Question for you, why do we have speed limits?

Are all the people speeding somehow exempt from physics or superior drivers to everyone else on the road? There's generally a pretty good reason to set a speed limit in an area.

So very expensive:
http://www.opticsale.com/bushnell-speed ... -guns.html

[Boogahz]

Here's an example of where this program could help:

Speeding cars scare neighbors near park

August 21, 2007
Speeding cars scare neighbors near park
ROUND ROCK — If Felix Torres sprays water on your car, you’re probably driving too fast down his street.

He learned to gauge a car’s speed by watching his wife drive at 30 mph up and down their block. And he’s not shy about letting people know when he thinks they should slow down.

He and some of his neighbors on Settlement Drive in a north Round Rock subdivision have put up homemade signs. Others yell at drivers, telling them to slow down.

A neighborhood that complains about drivers speeding isn’t unusual. But theirs is home to Settlement Lake Park, and Torres and his neighbors say they need help from city officials to keep children who use the park safe from speeders.

Settlement Drive separates the park from homes and the sidewalk. Parents, children and even geese dodge cars as they cross the street.

Torres and a couple of his neighbors asked the city twice by e-mail in the past few months for a crosswalk, more signs or a lower speed limit so children can safely cross.

“The street’s not painted. There’s no lights up. There’s nothing,” Torres said. “And that’s at the main entrance.”

A few months ago, a girl on a bicycle was hit by a car, the 12th accident on the road since August 2004, police records show. None of those accidents was caused by a flaw in enforcement or road design, or lack of signs, said Round Rock Police Department spokesman Eric Poteet.

At the request of residents, the city has studied traffic on the street three times since 2002.

The studies determined that there was not enough traffic on the road to warrant a stop sign.

Tom Martin, Round Rock’s transportation director, said a crosswalk alone would give a false sense of security.

The city added two “children at play” signs and speed limit signs, Martin said.

However, such signs don’t always work, according to national studies, he said.

“We’re ever vigilant, and we try to make it as safe as possible,” Martin said. “I can’t engineer the driver. That’s the wild card there.”

Settlement Drive resident Leslie Cowan, who worries that her 7-year-old daughter could wander into the road, said, “We don’t play in the front yard in our neighborhood.”

When a car was rear-ended and pushed onto the grass near the playscape, Cowan said, she showed it to her daughter. “I said, ‘This is why you can’t play in the yard.’ “

Statesman Watch first contacted the city about the matter last week. On Tuesday afternoon, city officials said they have studied pedestrian traffic on the road and now plan to recommend that City Council members approve two stop signs and a crosswalk at the intersection of Settlement Drive and Horseman Cove, at the park entrance. The council meets Thursday.

Assistant Police Chief Tim Ryle said he assigned officers this week to issue tickets and give offenders’ names to the neighborhood association.

“It’s a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood needs to take care of it,” he said.

[Funkmasterr]

Holy shit you may be even more paranoid than your brother. Who even said they were their neighbors? A lot of vehicles pass through residential areas that are driven by people who don't even reside there. I'd think it being your neighborhood would more incline one to follow the traffic laws to begin with.

I completely agree with fash and with sueven on this one, but like I said I already feel that the police spend entirely too much time/too many resources on speeding tickets, and this just makes it worse.

One comment I wanted to make was in reference to this comment by you aslanna - specifically the bolded part. The problem is, a lot of people expect people driving through their neighborhood to not only obey the speed laws, but drive UNDER the speed limit. I have had multiple people in my parents neighborhood wave for me to slow down, and one person actually talk to me, and I have not ONCE gone more than maybe 1mph over the posted speed limit (which is a reasonable speed limit, 20 mph).

It's those people in particular that don't need to be able to do this, and it's them that are most likely to want to do this..


In regards to your article boo - if some guy sprayed water at my car when I was driving by and I was going 5 over - I would most likely get out and thump his fucking head.. I can see it if someone is going 10-20+ over in a residential street, but he still has no goddamn business doing that (it's only going to make situations worse.)

[Fash]

Boogahz, I have no problem with those forms.. that's fine. Littering isn't cool, and the letter *might* make them think twice. There's no recorded evidence that says it's 100% true, so there's nothing binding about it.

There is a difference between reporting 1 incident, almost anonymously, and firing radar at everyone that passes you and reporting all the data. I don't know how you can't see that.

Question for you, why do we have speed limits?

Are all the people speeding somehow exempt from physics or superior drivers to everyone else on the road? There's generally a pretty good reason to set a speed limit in an area.

It's a reference point... It lets you know what to expect. You know if the speed limit is 55 or higher, it's mostly straight with high visibility... If you're in a 25, you know it's curvy or residential... It's not a hard and fast limit, though.

A few months ago, a girl on a bicycle was hit by a car, the 12th accident on the road since August 2004, police records show. None of those accidents was caused by a flaw in enforcement or road design, or lack of signs, said Round Rock Police Department spokesman Eric Poteet.

There's the problem right there... 12 accidents and they haven't done a fucking thing. No lights, no paint, no stop sign. Radar guns won't help you here!

[Boogahz]

The spraying of water wasn't the point of the article. The point is that this type of neighborhood would not warrant the speed bumps or anything else that Fash said should be installed. The only thing that can be done is citizen enforcement of some kind. I agree that spraying the water is not a good way to do it, and I feel that the radars would help. If the person was able to use this program with the radar guns, and go online to post the street/speed/date/time/license plate information, and an automated letter would then be sent out to the registered owner of the vehicle if the speed was over a threshold (13mph in the OP), I can see it causing people to either watch their speed or avoid cutting through the neighborhood just to avoid other roads.

Someone complaining about you going the speed limit or barely above it would not be the same as if you were going 40 through the same neighborhood you mentioned, funk. I think that the fact that you are going 20-21 through there shows that you DO recognize that there is a reason for the low speed limit to begin with.

There is a difference between reporting 1 incident, almost anonymously, and firing radar at everyone that passes you and reporting all the data. I don't know how you can't see that.

There is the problem. This is NOT about sharing ALL of the information. How do you think the radar works? You point it at something, and it tells you how fast it is approaching you. It knows nothing about what or who is approaching. It does not store all of your vehicle information and speeds. It would be up to the program to determine what can, and cannot, be reported. Even the original story you posted said that only drivers going 13mph over the posted speed limits would receive the warning letters. How does that show that ANY other information is ever tracked? Do you really think that people are going to track the speed/plate/time/date/etc on EVERY car that travels through their neighborhood, just to report the information and be told that none of it can be used?

[Boogahz]

So, my mom is on the city council of the city she lives in, and they have been fighting with TxDoT to get more Patrols in the area. They may actually use a version of this to warn people that speed through town while they continue to try to get actual officers out there. I believe they are meeting either this week or next, and she has it set aside to be brought up soon...will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Aslanna]

And also if you're going to flood the board with new topics, and there's nothing wrong with that, at least try making your subject titles a little less biased. 'nosy' is misleading here. I believe they are 'borrowing radar guns' to try and make their neighborhoods a little safer and not because they are 'nosy'. If they were nosy they'd be asking for wiretaps and search warrants.

[Bagar-]

This is a doublesided issue for me.

On one hand, if people are speeding through residential areas, they should have some form of reprimand, and you VERY rarely have police officers patroling residential areas where I live, so this is a pretty decent alternative. Granted, a "warning letter" isn't exactly going to be an effective speeding deterrant in my opinion.

In the other, I don't like fucking people who have nothing better to do than mind OTHER PEOPLE'S business. This is more a personal thing. If I saw some asshole sitting in their front yard all day with a radar gun taking notes, I'd probabaly have Funk go spit in his face.

Also, like sueven said, it's a pretty slippery slope.

[Funkmasterr]

And also if you're going to flood the board with new topics, and there's nothing wrong with that, at least try making your subject titles a little less biased. 'nosy' is misleading here. I believe they are 'borrowing radar guns' to try and make their neighborhoods a little safer and not because they are 'nosy'. If they were nosy they'd be asking for wiretaps and search warrants.

Why should the title be any different than the rest of this forum? He is the one taking the time to make the posts and encourage more debate, damn near the only one at that.. so he can make the title whatever he wants..

[Aslanna]

I believe I explained it well enough in my post.

[Fash]

I can't post everything in a completely neutral status... I'm doing this intentionally to spark conversation. I've slanted articles both ways, and I will continue to...

[Aslanna]

I never said anything about the articles themselves. And you're free to have your opinion on those issues. I just think your choice for subject lines could use a little work. And I'm not the only one to think so if you check the cleverly named "Clinton pollster says 25% of republican women are twats" thread:

Fash, I think your phrasing of the topic heading is unfair. Even overlooking your use of the word 'twat,' which the pollster certainly did not use, the phrasing of the subject makes it sound like the pollster is insulting some group of people when he's just trying to state the factual conclusion he's reached based on his research.

Your concerns have been noted. It was not my intention to mis-represent the pollsters conclusion.

However if you don't agree that's fine too. I just don't think the subject should be inferring something that's generally not the main thrust of the article being quoted.