Path: utzoo!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!mark
From: mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors (was Highway Driving Rules)
Keywords: speed limits
Message-ID: <860@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 89 21:22:01 GMT
References: <852@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <907@mks.UUCP> <1865@yunexus.UUCP> <296@moegate.UUCP> <858@bnr-rsc.UUCP> <13857@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 34

In article <13857@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John M. Sellens) writes:
>In article <858@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean) writes:
>>or >30 km/h over the speed limit.  This is an admission by them that
>>the posted speed limit is unreasonable.  If they truely beleived in it,
>>then they would enforce it exactly.
>
>Your conclusion does not necessarily follow.  Some possibilities:
>- posted limit is unenforceable
>- not economically worthwhile to enforce limit (e.g. if it takes 10
>  minutes to give a ticket, why not give a high $ one instead of a
>  low $ one)
>- enforcing limit not worth aggravating drivers

These three indicate that the police do not beleive in enforcing the 
limit.  This is not quite the same as their not believing in the limit,
but the result is the same.
It could mean that they do not have the manpower, but when I see them
looking for speeders, they seem content to let some slow speeders
go by to wait for faster ones.  They could probably write more tickets
(and generate more revenue) if they just went after the first speeder
that went by.  

>- don't have manpower/facilities to stop everyone, so pick the most
>  flagrant offenders

This may be their stategy, however I suspect that they might be more
effective at reducing average speeds to the limit (assuming that is
their goal) if they randomly ticketted anyone exceeding the limit.
This would probably not be very good public relations for them.

>- concentrate on people disrupting the traffic flow rather than those
>  going with the traffic

This is the same as my conclusion.