Warning People about Speed Traps

I think she is an idiot for not wanting people to obey the speed limit on her street. I would be thrilled if the police did a blitz on my street to try and get people to slow down. I'm glad she spent 12 hours in jail, just for being a moron.

geogirl13 wrote:I think she is an idiot for not wanting people to obey the speed limit on her street. I would be thrilled if the police did a blitz on my street to try and get people to slow down. I'm glad she spent 12 hours in jail, just for being a moron.

I am a bit confused by your assessment. How does putting up the warning sign imply that she doesn't want people to obey the speed limit? Wouldn't the point be that if someone were slightly over they would see the sign and slow down, thus obeying the speed limit? If they chose not to they would still get a ticket. If people will slow down with the extra warning, doesn't that also accomplish the goal of having them drive the speed limit just without a) the extra hassle and expense to them of getting a ticket and b) the extra disruption to traffic flow of having a bunch of people pulled over potentially obstructing traffic and causing others to potentially have to slow down to below the speed limit in order to navigate it? I guess I just don't get why this is undercuts the end of having people obey the posted speed limit.

I also have to say that I disagree that people should go to jail for things that others consider stupid, but that are not actually illegal. Part of the point of having laws is that they provide clear guidelines with foreseeable consequences for certain actions. If we start saying, "that's not actually illegal, but I think it's stupid so you have to go to jail anyway," then what purpose does having recorded rules serve? This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

Could you maybe explain a little more about how this is working in your head?

*She* says that the police couldn't arrest her for it because it wasn't illegal. As the article says they "threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice, a much more serious charge," I think what she was doing was actually illegal and they were taking it easy on her with a lesser charge. Obstruction of justice was my first thought on it even before I read their threat. I don't know why a person would think it was okay to interfere in police business.

rgle14 wrote:

geogirl13 wrote:I think she is an idiot for not wanting people to obey the speed limit on her street. I would be thrilled if the police did a blitz on my street to try and get people to slow down. I'm glad she spent 12 hours in jail, just for being a moron.

I am a bit confused by your assessment. How does putting up the warning sign imply that she doesn't want people to obey the speed limit? Wouldn't the point be that if someone were slightly over they would see the sign and slow down, thus obeying the speed limit? If they chose not to they would still get a ticket. If people will slow down with the extra warning, doesn't that also accomplish the goal of having them drive the speed limit just without a) the extra hassle and expense to them of getting a ticket and b) the extra disruption to traffic flow of having a bunch of people pulled over potentially obstructing traffic and causing others to potentially have to slow down to below the speed limit in order to navigate it? I guess I just don't get why this is undercuts the end of having people obey the posted speed limit.

I also have to say that I disagree that people should go to jail for things that others consider stupid, but that are not actually illegal. Part of the point of having laws is that they provide clear guidelines with foreseeable consequences for certain actions. If we start saying, "that's not actually illegal, but I think it's stupid so you have to go to jail anyway," then what purpose does having recorded rules serve? This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

Could you maybe explain a little more about how this is working in your head?

A speed trap isn't set up to warn people to slow down. It is to catch people that do not drive the speed limit. I am guessing that the point is that speeders deserve to be caught and busted since knowing a cop is right there will likely cause them to slow down just long enough for the police officer to be out of sight with no actual repercussions.

rgle14 wrote:
I also have to say that I disagree that people should go to jail for things that others consider stupid, but that are not actually illegal. Part of the point of having laws is that they provide clear guidelines with foreseeable consequences for certain actions. If we start saying, "that's not actually illegal, but I think it's stupid so you have to go to jail anyway," then what purpose does having recorded rules serve? This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

She was not arrested for holding up the sign. She was arrested for standing in the street which violates a law.

I do agree that they may have been harder on her because of the sign but they were not harder on her in excess of the law but rather within the confines of it.

In my head I see it this way. Someone speeding sees a woman holding a sign and thinks "better slow down". They do so until they see the cop, and once in the clear they resume their speeding. Someone who is speeding that actually gets pulled over and gets a ticket will be far more likely to not speed in the future, having suffered an actual consequence that is not only an inconvenience, but expensive. I honestly don't understand her motivation in wanting to help complete strangers that are speeding through her neighborhood avoid a ticket. They offer no such thoughtfulness to her by ignoring speed limits and possibly endangering kids, adults, pets etc. To me it screams of "I hate cops, how dare they try and hand out tickets, cops suck" mentality, which I have no sympathy or understanding for. She says she wanted to help other drivers, but in reality I think she was just giving the cops the middle finger and her attitude continued through her arrest.

She went to jail for doing something illegal, standing in the street. That is the rule, and she broke it. She denies it, but does that mean she didn't do it? That is what she was arrested for, and the police did their job by enforcing the rule. She doesn't like it, she denies it, oldest story in the book. I am just happy she spent time in jail because she is stupid, but I understand not every stupid person can be thrown in jail. I just think that she was quite likely standing in the street, and is just denying it. Someone who will go to lengths to be counterproductive to the police is bound to keep up the "look how horrible the police are" stance - claiming they arrested her for nothing. Why would I read this story and believe anything she says?

In my opinion there is a complete lack of respect for authority these days that is growing and growing and being shown in the young people, based on what behaviors they see from adult role models.

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

rgle14 wrote:
I also have to say that I disagree that people should go to jail for things that others consider stupid, but that are not actually illegal. Part of the point of having laws is that they provide clear guidelines with foreseeable consequences for certain actions. If we start saying, "that's not actually illegal, but I think it's stupid so you have to go to jail anyway," then what purpose does having recorded rules serve? This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

She was not arrested for holding up the sign. She was arrested for standing in the street which violates a law.

I do agree that they may have been harder on her because of the sign but they were not harder on her in excess of the law but rather within the confines of it.

I agree that this is the charge and apparently a question of fact that they can argue over in court. I don't think that there is any way to tell from the article whether she was actually in the street or on the sidewalk (one person says one thing, the other says another, sorting those things out is what hearings are for). That's not what I was responding to.

The statement you quoted was a specific reply to a specific statement by a PP that she was glad the woman spent time in jail for "being a moron" because holding up the sign encouraged people to speed. That is the reasoning that I took issue with. If holding up the sign is not illegal, she should not be arrested for it just because someone considers it stupid.

Zile9588 wrote:*She* says that the police couldn't arrest her for it because it wasn't illegal. As the article says they "threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice, a much more serious charge," I think what she was doing was actually illegal and they were taking it easy on her with a lesser charge. Obstruction of justice was my first thought on it even before I read their threat. I don't know why a person would think it was okay to interfere in police business.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how obstruction works. If she were jumping up and down in front of the speed gun to keep it from getting a good reading or lied when asked if she saw someone speeding, that would be obstruction and I would agree with you. Simply suggesting that someone should pay more attention to their speed before they get to a speed trap whether verbally or on a sign isn't preventing the police from ticketing someone who is speeding, finding out that someone is speeding or getting information about the speeding. It is telling someone not to speed in a particular area. If she had a friend coming over for dinner that night and told them on the phone, "By the way, they set up a speed trap on my road today, you probably want to watch your speed a bit more carefully" would you call that obstruction? It's the same thing.

geogirl13 wrote:In my head I see it this way. Someone speeding sees a woman holding a sign and thinks "better slow down". They do so until they see the cop, and once in the clear they resume their speeding. Someone who is speeding that actually gets pulled over and gets a ticket will be far more likely to not speed in the future, having suffered an actual consequence that is not only an inconvenience, but expensive. I honestly don't understand her motivation in wanting to help complete strangers that are speeding through her neighborhood avoid a ticket. They offer no such thoughtfulness to her by ignoring speed limits and possibly endangering kids, adults, pets etc. To me it screams of "I hate cops, how dare they try and hand out tickets, cops suck" mentality, which I have no sympathy or understanding for. She says she wanted to help other drivers, but in reality I think she was just giving the cops the middle finger and her attitude continued through her arrest.

She went to jail for doing something illegal, standing in the street. That is the rule, and she broke it. She denies it, but does that mean she didn't do it? That is what she was arrested for, and the police did their job by enforcing the rule. She doesn't like it, she denies it, oldest story in the book. I am just happy she spent time in jail because she is stupid, but I understand not every stupid person can be thrown in jail. I just think that she was quite likely standing in the street, and is just denying it. Someone who will go to lengths to be counterproductive to the police is bound to keep up the "look how horrible the police are" stance - claiming they arrested her for nothing. Why would I read this story and believe anything she says?

In my opinion there is a complete lack of respect for authority these days that is growing and growing and being shown in the young people, based on what behaviors they see from adult role models.

I agree that I don't understand why she (or anyone) would consider it worth this much time or effort to hold up the sign about the speed trap and that it sounds odd. I also appreciate your clarifying the comment about spending time in jail because it was stupid. In your PP, it sounded like you were saying that because holding up the sign was stupid, she should go to jail whether it was actually illegal or not and that was what was bothering me. If the actual point is that you don't believe she was on the sidewalk and support her being ticketed for the standing in the street violation. That makes more sense and I can see your point. I disagee that it is clear from the article where she was standing and think that this type of disagreement around fact is why we have hearings to sort out guilt. I do wonder whether it is routine to arrest people and make them post bond over that type of infraction in this jurisdiction as opposed to simply issuing a ticket and requiring them to pay a fine. That seems a bit overkill for the actual charge and if it is not the usual practice, I would question the appropriateness of treating this woman differently, although again, I don't know the municiple code in Houston well enough to say which it is.

As for the speed trap issue (this has come up a few times, so my reply is intended to be general rather than directed at a specific poster). IME, speed traps are usually effective in reducing speed once people hear that they are there and start making an effort to be more mindful of speed in that particular area. If the point is to prevent speeding and with that to hopefully increase public safety, it doesn't do much good to have someone speed and then get a ticket because at that point they are already speeding. What does reduce speeding is for people to be more concerned about speeding either through education or a threat of penalty and reduce their speeds as a result. Speed traps to my understanding are set up to create a situation in which people pay more attention to their speed and as a result reduce it out of a more immediate than usual threat of punishment. Usually, that result is largely based on word of mouth communication. I don't see how participating in that communication (granted in an odd and OTT way) is worse than the example I gave above of mentioning it to a freind who is coming over to your house for dinner.

rgle14 wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

rgle14 wrote:
I also have to say that I disagree that people should go to jail for things that others consider stupid, but that are not actually illegal. Part of the point of having laws is that they provide clear guidelines with foreseeable consequences for certain actions. If we start saying, "that's not actually illegal, but I think it's stupid so you have to go to jail anyway," then what purpose does having recorded rules serve? This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

She was not arrested for holding up the sign. She was arrested for standing in the street which violates a law.

I do agree that they may have been harder on her because of the sign but they were not harder on her in excess of the law but rather within the confines of it.

I agree that this is the charge and apparently a question of fact that they can argue over in court. I don't think that there is any way to tell from the article whether she was actually in the street or on the sidewalk (one person says one thing, the other says another, sorting those things out is what hearings are for). That's not what I was responding to.

The statement you quoted was a specific reply to a specific statement by a PP that she was glad the woman spent time in jail for "being a moron" because holding up the sign encouraged people to speed. That is the reasoning that I took issue with. If holding up the sign is not illegal, she should not be arrested for it just because someone considers it stupid.

But she wasn't arrested for holding the sign. I realize you were addressing someone else entirely but I jumped in cause I'm a jerk like that.

She was not arrested for holding the sign. While acting like a moron she also did something illegal. She was arrested for what she did illegally. She would not have attracted such attention to herself without the sign so while the two actions are related to each other, she was not arrested for holding the sign.

To be fair, I don't think that what the woman did was actually worth the consequence of an arrest. Maybe a stern talking to if the police felt so inclined.

I am only stating that the idea that she was arrested for holding the sign is false. She would not have attracted such attention to herself without the sign, most likely but when you piss off police officers, you might want to make sure they don't have any reason to piss you off in return.

To be clear, I am not saying that I think she was arrested for holding up the sign. I understand that she was charged with standing in the street when there was a sidewalk available. I have stated a few times that I feel there is insufficient information in the article for me to make a statement about whether I think she actually did that or not.

I also did not intend to object to someone other then the person I responded to directly participating in the debate.

My entire point was that that the PP that I responded to appeared to be saying "Holding up the sign was stupid, so regardless of whether that was illegal and regardless of whether she was doing anything that was illegal, it's good that she was arrested because holding up the sign was stupid." I stated that I did not think that specific position was reasonable for the reasons I discussed in that post. The second half of my initial response was intended to address that specific sentiment and nothing else (although I did speak to a separate issue in the first paragraph of that post, so it may have been confusing).

I have not said and do not believe that she was arrested on a charge specifically for holding the sign (although I do think that it's entirely likely that she received different and disproportionately punative treatment compared to other people facing the same charge because of other circumstances, which likely included the police having a problem with the sign).

I also want to be clear that since my first post the other poster I responded to has written more and clarified that what I thought she was saying was not what she intended to communicate. I appreciate that and acknowledge that the point I raised was not actually relevent to what she was saying but rather to the argument I incorrectly perceived.

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:To be fair, I don't think that what the woman did was actually worth the consequence of an arrest. Maybe a stern talking to if the police felt so inclined.

return.

My feelings exactly. I don't think people realize the tax amount that is spent on the time and process of booking someone into a jail. Standing in the street is not worthy of my tax money that I leave my children over 40 hours a week for. I also don't think that someone standing in the street should be in jail with hard criminals. Would I try to protect speeders? Not like that, but sometimes I flash my lights at people to warn them a cop is waiting and people do the same for me. Would I ever protect people who speed through a residential area? Nope. But arresting them? What a waste of time.

So I've been thinking about how to reply to this since it was posted. I so wish that we knew the full story of what happened. I wonder if she was asked to stop & got argumentative & rude. I wonder if she was asked to stop. I wonder a lot of things that we will never know the answers to. I can't understand why someone would NOT want this in their neighborhood. I used to live on a road where people sped all the time & when I called the police to ask them to step up patrols & was informed that it was hard because there was no shoulder for them to park on I offered my driveway!


As to speed traps not really working. I think they do, if they are done enough. We have a highway nearby that is 55 mph. It feels like it should be 65! It's *really* easy to speed on this stretch of road. I have been passed, looked down & realized that I'm going 70! So there are two spots on the road where the police sit. These 2 spots are in the easiest areas to speed. They aren't always there, but you can bet your butt that if you know they might be you're checking your speed & slowing down! So, because they are often there, we slow down. Because you can't see them until it's too late. We all check our speed. If we're having friends in from out of the area, we will tell them "Watch your speed on the by-pass, the cops are there a lot!" It does cut down the speeding because you never know.

if police arrested a woman for standing in the street, then hopefully it was after telling her that this was against the law and she should stand on the sidewalk and that she did not do so.

if they threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice for holding a sign that said speed trap then they seem petty and foolish, just drive somewhere else for the darn trap.

although, she sounds a bit silly if she was holding the sign for very long. I'm guessing she had already been ticketed, or someone she knows had been, because I can't imagine why else she would go to so much trouble and then still make a big deal afterwards.

I don't know that what the police do should be completely unquestioned, someone said she shouldn't get involved in police business, but this particular situation seems a bit silly.

it does, however, suggest what you could do if the police aren't coming to your street to deal with idiots who speed on a residential road.