Talk:Speed trap

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Enforcement This redirect is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement

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)

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)Reply

I am removing the worldwide perspective gripe tag from the article. If this article lacks worldwide perspective , it is because of omission, not because 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Yes, I have never seen the 45mph zone enforced, the only vehicles you will see pulled over are prohibited commercial vehicles or perhaps people violating the 55mph speed limit, though there is no active enforcemenbt to be seen. Further, there's many many signs warning motorists of the 45mph limit. Finally, the reason for the drop in speed isn't revenue, but a complex 15 year land use battle that required zoning that stretch as a parkway which in MN requires a 45mph limit and no heavry trucks. So I'm deleting that paragraph. cite: http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/archive/06/apr/12.html Nmpls 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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%! (unsigned)

This entire article is riddled with anecdotal evidence and contains very little in the way of actual verifiable information. I thought that this article would be informative on the subject, not a forum for people to gripe about getting speeding tickets. For future reference: If you're mad you got a speeding ticket, try slowing down. Don't alter an encyclopedia article to force your skewed view of the subject. I'm sorry, but too many articles are being vandalized like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparenti (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Removed: The term speed trap is usually used by motorists, not by enforcement officers. It may be considered pejorative, and use of the term may suggest the appearance of speed enforcement by concealed means or excessively strict speed enforcement.
  
  • Rationale: Not cited, seems unlikely, and contains weasel words.

• Removed: Speed traps often are found in poor small towns, often near major highways, in which travelers are less likely to return and challenge a ticket.
  
  • Rationale: Not cited, seems to be a generalization that could not be confirmed. Additionaly, the section it was in was able to be rewritten using verifiable information to explain the point it was trying to convey.

Sorry for the short, somewhat curt explainations, no harm intended I'm just time limited tonight. -- Davandron | Talk 03:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there anything in this article that does not consist solely of belligerent ranting, personal opinions disguised as facts, or off-topic whining about "such-and-such happened in my town!" If so, please preserve it, and remove everything else. If nothing encyclopedic exists in the article, then perhaps we should consider just nuking the entire thing. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article is highly POV, starting with the title. The word "Trap" is derogatory, it implies something underhand or unjustifiable is being done. A more neutral title should be used, such as "Speed limit enforcement".

But it gets no better after that. I agree with the above poster that this article "consist solely of belligerent ranting, personal opinions disguised as facts ....". Plus weasel words, starting with the first sentence: "The term speed trap can refer to a ....", it "can" refer to a lot of things, but what (encyclopaedicly speaking) does it refer to?

It needs a 100% re-write.

We could start with a "purpose" section. "The purpose of speed limit enforcement is to keep the speed of vehicles within the specified limits and reduce the risk of accident or injury to other road users, including motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. In order to do this drivers of speeding vehicles need to be identified, and penalties applied, which are normally fines and / or restrictions on vehicle use (penalty points or immediate suspension of the driver's driving licence)." TiffaF 13:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another article on speed limit enforcement might work, but "speed traps" are a specific thing. Such an article could talk about each of the different methods used. Plinkit 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. "Speed trap" and "speed limit enforcement" are not the same thing, as not all speed limit enforcement (i.e. incidences of people being pulled over) are from "speed traps". The name should stay as it is. CopaceticThought (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a bill in the California State Assembly right now that would let the city of Pasadena, California get around one of the restrictions in the California Speed Trap law. Specifically, it would allow Pasadena to apply 25 mph speed limits to streets in residential districts, even if such streets are designated as "arterial" or "collector" streets (and so, eligible for Federal funds for maintenance). The text, and analysis of the bill are available from the legislature, and a third-party analysis (in opposition), is available from highwayrobbery.net. I wasn't sure exactly how to fit this into the article, so I decided to put it here instead -- feel free to adapt this into the main article text. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Until the law is passed and signed, there's no need to put it in the article. If it does get passed, it would be worth mentioning in the article under California section. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia now has an article called Speed limit enforcement‎. Its scope clearly includes the subject of this article, and removes the potential for argument about the neutrality of the name. I have also been concerned about the fact that this article's name is simply slang or jargon. The new article uses more formal and encyclopaedic language.

While considerable work will be needed on the new article, it can proceed without the distraction of whether the title is appropriate.

HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Great. BTW, "Speed trap" is in colloquial/common usage, so I'm not seeing any encyclopedic problem with this wording per se. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK. Count me as better educated now. Speed Trap is not a common term where I come from - heard it on TV and in the movies from other places - but I'm always happy to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Regardless of the term I think it is useful to have one article to cover the subject of speed limit enforcement. The word 'trap' does have negative connotations and I would prefer this article to become a redirect than for the 'speed limit enforcement' article to become one. We can then have article for individual methods of speed measurement. For me a 'speed trap' brings up images of old fashioned policemen from the 1950's hiding in bushes with stop watches and rubber truncheons. I realise that I am possibly in a minority though! PeterEastern (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
• A quick review of the talk page shows that most of the page is spent complaining about the bias in the title and the article. Sounds to be as if we are about 2 years late in doing the merge/move! PeterEastern (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Speed trap" was accepted terminology in the UK and other parts of the world, but has slowly been replaced by terminology like "Gatso" (after the manufacturer), "speed camera" or the more politically correct "safety camera". The underlying topic remains the same though, and the new title should suffice. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply