Is the use of a radar detector morally justifiable?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I don’t know if there is a moral issue with radars or not. People will have to square that away with themselves. I don’t use one in my personal vehicle, but I don’t speed either so that is a moot point. The odd thing is though that most of the speed stops that I make the violator has a radar detector in their vehicle, so I have to question whether 1) they were so caught up in what they were doing that they missed it or 2) radar reliability is not as good as some may believe it is.

I don’t care if I see a radar detector in someone’s vehicle. I am not going to write a speeding citation based on the fact that one is present in the vehicle. I get a kick though out of the people I see take it off their dash and hide it while I am walking up… Why are they hiding it if they feel justified to use it

Anyways what a radar detector being present in the vehicle will do though is that I will be less likely to believe someone when they tell me that they just weren’t paying attention. To me, a radar detector shows intent. However this doesn’t matter to me because I try to decide before I approach the vehicle whether someone is receiving a citation or not. I don’t write attitude citations. If a jerk deserves a warning he’s getting a warning.

Also someone brought up the fact that they were in 4 accidents in their life and not one was a result of speed. Well I have investigated hundreds of crashes in my career and I can only think of a handful of crashes involving a single vehicle rollover that I determined speed was not a factor. Most of those where speed was not a factor involved someone over correcting the vehicle to miss a deer. BTW people, just hit the deer. Bambi is not worth it.

Just my two cents for what its worth

God bless

 

[aspawloski4th]

I don’t know if there is a moral issue with radars or not. People will have to square that away with themselves. I don’t use one in my personal vehicle, but I don’t speed either so that is a moot point. The odd thing is though that most of the speed stops that I make the violator has a radar detector in their vehicle, so I have to question whether 1) they were so caught up in what they were doing that they missed it or 2) radar reliability is not as good as some may believe it is.

I don’t care if I see a radar detector in someone’s vehicle. I am not going to write a speeding citation based on the fact that one is present in the vehicle. I get a kick though out of the people I see take it off their dash and hide it while I am walking up… Why are they hiding it if they feel justified to use it

Anyways what a radar detector being present in the vehicle will do though is that I will be less likely to believe someone when they tell me that they just weren’t paying attention. To me, a radar detector shows intent. However this doesn’t matter to me because I try to decide before I approach the vehicle whether someone is receiving a citation or not. I don’t write attitude citations. If a jerk deserves a warning he’s getting a warning.

Also someone brought up the fact that they were in 4 accidents in their life and not one was a result of speed. Well I have investigated hundreds of crashes in my career and I can only think of a handful of crashes involving a single vehicle rollover that I determined speed was not a factor. Most of those involved someone over correcting the vehicle to miss a deer. BTW people, just hit the deer. Bambi is not worth it.

Just my two cents for what its worth

God bless

You must not of investigated many crashes. One accedent was because the person driving was having a seizure and side swiped me, one crash was because a left turn was made in front of me at an intersection, one was a stop sign being run because the lady’s attention was elsewhere, and last fall a woman in a big van was tryed to make a right turn out of a laft turn lane and plowed me into the side of the road by the way I was going slower than the speed limit when that one happened. The otrher 3 I was doing the speedlimit. With that experience Ill truest there is some other factor other than speed to a good many car crashes.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Well, I can say, mine doesn’t go off every time a cop is behind me, or parked on the side of the road. But it has no problem detecting those automatic doors at CVS. I got mine because it detects everything, police, fire, emt, scdot, and apparently automatic doors.

So, where in the Catechism does it say we can reject legitimite authority if it is inconvenient?

This finally got me to look.
1900 - The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.
1903 - Authority is excerised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”
2238 - Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution… Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but live as servants of God.” Their local collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.
2242 - The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demans are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between service God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” “We must obey God rather than men”:
2255 - It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.

I’ve yet to locate though what to do is a person in authority is breaking the law which their job is to enforce.

I get a kick though out of the people I see take it off their dash and hide it while I am walking up… Why are they hiding it if they feel justified to use it

Perhaps they thing the detector is illegal. I know they’re illegal in some states, or I think they are at least. So when I travel out of state, to be safe, I put it away all together.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well, I can say, mine doesn’t go off every time a cop is behind me, or parked on the side of the road.

This could be because the officer is not using his radar. I don’t drive around with my radar on. I see a vehicle that I determine is driving at a high rate of speed and I confirm my observation using my radar. If I check you with my radar, your detector isn’t going to do any good. It’s already too late. However, if you are in the area, then yes, your radar will pick up that I have used it to check another vehicle’s speed, but more than likely I am stopping the other vehicle so whats the point? You will know I am there anyways when you see my emergency lights after I initiate a traffic stop on the other vehicle.

This brings up another point, An officer shouldn’t rely on their radar and check the speed of every vehicle that passes them. They should be able to tell within a couple of miles per hour the speed of a vehicle. A radar should be used to confirm their observation. That is how I was trained to use it and that is how I use it.

I’ve yet to locate though what to do is a person in authority is breaking the law which their job is to enforce.

Let me ask you; if your were being assaulted, would you want me to run code to the call or would you prefer I obey all the traffic laws while responding? Officers should obey all traffic laws during non-emergency activity. That is how my state works, perhaps it is different in others.

Perhaps they thing the detector is illegal. I know they’re illegal in some states, or I think they are at least. So when I travel out of state, to be safe, I put it away all together.

Being illegal doesn’t bode well for it being morally okay to use. Why would it be illegal in some states?

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You must not of investigated many crashes.

Hundreds. Upwards of 15-20 a month. How many have you investigated I wonder?

One accedent was because the person driving was having a seizure and side swiped me, one crash was because a left turn was made in front of me at an intersection, one was a stop sign being run because the lady’s attention was elsewhere, and last fall a woman in a big van was tryed to make a right turn out of a laft turn lane and plowed me into the side of the road by the way I was going slower than the speed limit when that one happened. The otrher 3 I was doing the speedlimit. With that experience Ill truest there is some other factor other than speed to a good many car crashes.

Just because the 4 crashes you were involved in didn’t involve speed doesn’t mean speed has never been a factor in other crashes. Again, most of all the single vehicle rollover crashes (not all of my crashes have been single vehicle rollovers, I specifically singled these out for a reason) that I have investigated, speed was a factor.

God bless

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Let me ask you; if your were being assaulted, would you want me to run code to the call or would you prefer I obey all the traffic laws while responding? Officers should obey all traffic laws during non-emergency activity. That is how my state works, perhaps it is different in others.

Well, is sitting waiting for speeders to pass considered “emergency?”
In this state, South Carolina, it’s illegal for an officer to sit behind trees, in other words, hide, detect a speeder, and pull out to catch the speeder. They need to be in plain view, whether on the grass median or off to the side in the right-of-way. Never obstructed from the view of other cars. May be crazy, but it’s the law here.
Quite opposite from my days in NJ, where it wasn’t unusual to suddenly see a cop car pull out of the trees on the Parkway to pull over a speeder.

Being illegal doesn’t bode well for it being morally okay to use. Why would it be illegal in some states?

Of course it doesn’t. Having one in a state where they are illegal would be illegal. I was always taught that in NJ, they were illegal, and that’s why my friends would buy them from some guy on the street (along with black boxes for cable).

I just did a google search, and it says they are only illegal in Virginia and Washington D.C. I thought I read awhile back that they weren’t illegal in NY, but having something on your windshield or dash was.
So I would think that it would be immoral to have one in Virginia, since they are illegal, regardless if the intent is to speed with it or not.
Which is why I remove it from operating when I’m driving out of state, I just don’t know the laws regarding them from state to state, and never googled it before. And I wouldn’t really trust the internet for something like that. It’s not like I can use as a defense “But Google said it was legal.”

 

[CWBetts]

Lets phrase the question this way: Does the use for which a radar detector is designed have a use other than evading traffic tickets? If so, what is the legitimate use? So could we then say that it is immoral to use a radar detector to evade traffic citations, but it is not immoral for the as yet undefined legitimate use? For example a computer is not immoral in and of itself, but there obviously immoral uses for a computer. Is the radar detector a piece of technology with both moral and immoral uses?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

In this state, South Carolina, it’s illegal for an officer to sit behind trees, in other words, hide, detect a speeder, and pull out to catch the speeder. They need to be in plain view, whether on the grass median or off to the side in the right-of-way. Never obstructed from the view of other cars. May be crazy, but it’s the law here.

Fair enough.Besides, I don’t sit behind trees. They would interfere with my radar unit . Perhaps the officers are doing paper work and don’t want to be bothered? We should be seen though. Officer presence alone is a deterrent as well.

Quite opposite from my days in NJ, where it wasn’t unusual to suddenly see a cop car pull out of the trees on the Parkway to pull over a speeder.

Again, I am not sure how these officers are getting any speeds on vehicles with obstructions in front of them. Every radar I have ever been issued would not be able to do this.

Of course it doesn’t. Having one in a state where they are illegal would be illegal.

Why are they illegal though if it is morally okay to use them? Do you know what the argument is that these states have used to outlaw them?

God bless

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Fair enough.Besides, I don’t sit behind trees. They would interfere with my radar unit . Perhaps the officers are doing paper work and don’t want to be bothered? We should be seen. Officer presence alone is a deterrent as well.

Again, I am not sure how these officers are getting any speeds on vehicles with obstructions in front of them. Every radar I have ever been issued would not be able to do this.

Well, I wouldn’t be able to detect them if they weren’t paying attention to the cars, doing paper work, and I would presume didn’t have their radar on, since they would want to not be bothered.
And in NJ, my example, they’re not surrounded entirely. They have trees blocking the back of their car, so you can’t see them, but they can see you once you pass them. And you can then see them in your rear view mirror.

Why are they illegal though if it is morally okay to use them? Do you know what the argument is that these states have used to outlaw them?

God bless

No, I do not. Probably because they feel people use them in order to avoid a ticket. Maybe it’s like how politicians in states that banned driving while talking on a cell phone want to now ban use of a bluetooth or other handsfree device. The arguement is that people are still not paying attention to the road. But what I don’t get is, the same argument could be said for talking to passengers, or singing along with the radio. I may still not be paying attention to the road like I should be if doing those actions.

Lets phrase the question this way: Does the use for which a radar detector is designed have a use other than evading traffic tickets? If so, what is the legitimate use? So could we then say that it is immoral to use a radar detector to evade traffic citations, but it is not immoral for the as yet undefined legitimate use? For example a computer is not immoral in and of itself, but there obviously immoral uses for a computer. Is the radar detector a piece of technology with both moral and immoral uses?

Straight answer, my opinion? Yes.
Like I said, mine can detect other emergency vehicles, and their proximity to me. Fire trucks, ambulances, DOT vehicles. Last time I checked, none of these can pull me over and issue me a ticket.
Now, if you have one that can only detect radar, like some of the cheaper models, then that’s getting closer to immoral.
*
edited for spelling*

 

[stringbeanduck]

A lot of time the cops have already got your speed by the time the fuzzbuster is going off. Even so the reaction time it takes to get your speed down once it starts going off takes a bit of time. Reasons why I don’t see the need to purchase one.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Lets phrase the question this way: Does the use for which a radar detector is designed have a use other than evading traffic tickets? If so, what is the legitimate use? So could we then say that it is immoral to use a radar detector to evade traffic citations, but it is not immoral for the as yet undefined legitimate use? For example a computer is not immoral in and of itself, but there obviously immoral uses for a computer. Is the radar detector a piece of technology with both moral and immoral uses?

I don’t trust that when I am doing the speed limit I will not get pulled over. So I have a big lack of trust. One ticket here in Michigan can make me and my disabled wife homeless. There are more important things than following an arbitrarily set speed limit.

 

[AHapka]

If there are people out there driving who have had more than three DUI convictions, they are doing so without a legal driver’s license.

Unless they got it back. Here it’s 2-3 year revocation for offense 3 and up.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I don’t trust that when I am doing the speed limit I will not get pulled over.

Officer’s should be using the tuning fork test to ensure that their radar is working properly. They should also do an internal circuit test after each use to, again, ensure that the instrument is working properly. Radar’s, when used properly, have been accepted in court as being able to determine a vehicle’s speed. There is a scientific principle behind the radar, and courts have accepted it. Again, an officer should be using a radar to confirm his initial observation that the vehicle is speeding.

Incidentally, since I know how radars work and have testified in court to how they work, I do not have these trust issues.

I respect your position, but if you are stop and you were actually not speeding, this tells me more about the officer than it does the radar instrument.

So I have a big lack of trust. One ticket here in Michigan can make me and my disabled wife homeless. There are more important things than following an arbitrarily set speed limit.

I am sorry to hear this. You will be in my prayers.

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well, I wouldn’t be able to detect them if they weren’t paying attention to the cars, doing paper work, and I would presume didn’t have their radar on, since they would want to not be bothered.

You never know. I have heard of officers who will leave their radars on continuously when they need to go to the office or are doing paper work. This way, if someone is speeding they will detect the radar and slow down and the officer can continue to the office. The point is, you just don’t know what the officer is doing.

And in NJ, my example, they’re not surrounded entirely. They have trees blocking the back of their car, so you can’t see them, but they can see you once you pass them. And you can then see them in your rear view mirror.

So they must have same direction radars since they would only be able to check your speed after you passed them. Maybe this is an eastern US thing? I have never seen an officer hide behind trees out here. Maybe I am not looking for them I have seen them around corners, which is just as surprising.

No, I do not. Probably because they feel people use them in order to avoid a ticket. Maybe it’s like how politicians in states that banned driving while talking on a cell phone want to now ban use of a bluetooth or other handsfree device. The arguement is that people are still not paying attention to the road. But what I don’t get is, the same argument could be said for talking to passengers, or singing along with the radio. I may still not be paying attention to the road like I should be if doing those actions.

I don’t know the argument either. They are legal in my state, I just curious what the justification was for making them illegal.

God bless

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Unless they got it back. Here it’s 2-3 year revocation for offense 3 and up.

See, just different laws for different parts of the country.
Here it’s 6 months for the first offense, with some jail time. But during your suspension, you can drive a moped on all the roads, including major highways. Which to me, driving 25mph in a 60mph zone can be dangerous itself.

 

[AHapka]

I was stopped once for 57 in a 55. That is within the mandated government tolerance for
speedometer error. The trooper was running moving radar and I passed him. He was in the left hand lane. I was chatting with my wife and sons heading out for a Saturday familly event. He chewed me out for speeding and threw my license and insurance back at me when I didn’t submit to his rude authority. NO ticket either.

In Wisconsin, it’s 4%. So you’d be within the margin here.

In two years of traffic duty here, I can count on one hand the number of citations I have written for 14 or less over (a wide load semi into two lanes at 14 over is one example, a school bus at 11 over is another). Our rule here is 15 or above gets the ticket. It makes it a lot easier to make decisions, since you eliminate people who simply go a few over based on margin of error or downhill or keeping up with traffic or whatever. At that point the person clearly knows they are speeding so most excuses are moot.

Sorry you had that bad experience. Unfortunately, we have people who take out their bad days or are bad apples on other people here too. Though you don’t need insurance in Wisconsin, so I’d only take your license…lol.

Oh, we also use laser on the interstate. It takes about 1-2 seconds to read a speed. So even if you have a laser detector you’d have to react very fast to slow down in time. It’s also used while stationary, and there’s really no need to hide. Even with a marked car, I just pull off to the right and still get plenty at 80+. It’s effective range is 2,000 feet (1/4 mile) and has a sighting scope where you simply put the dot on the car you are targeting.

Once nice thing about our county is that they required all of the Judges to go out and use the laser to see how it worked, and actually target cars themselves so that they knew more then just the technical side of it. It’s nice for the ones on the bench to have an idea of where both sides are coming from in traffic court.

 

[Shin]

In Wisconsin, it’s 4%. So you’d be within the margin here.

In two years of traffic duty here, I can count on one hand the number of citations I have written for 14 or less over (a wide load semi into two lanes at 14 over is one example, a school bus at 11 over is another). Our rule here is 15 or above gets the ticket. It makes it a lot easier to make decisions, since you eliminate people who simply go a few over based on margin of error or downhill or keeping up with traffic or whatever. At that point the person clearly knows they are speeding so most excuses are moot.

Sorry you had that bad experience. Unfortunately, we have people who take out their bad days or are bad apples on other people here too. Though you don’t need insurance in Wisconsin, so I’d only take your license…lol.

Oh, we also use laser on the interstate. It takes about 1-2 seconds to read a speed. So even if you have a laser detector you’d have to react very fast to slow down in time. It’s also used while stationary, and there’s really no need to hide. Even with a marked car, I just pull off to the right and still get plenty at 80+. It’s effective range is 2,000 feet (1/4 mile) and has a sighting scope where you simply put the dot on the car you are targeting.

Once nice thing about our county is that they required all of the Judges to go out and use the laser to see how it worked, and actually target cars themselves so that they knew more then just the technical side of it. It’s nice for the ones on the bench to have an idea of where both sides are coming from in traffic court.

Ah! No required insurance. How wonderful. Is there any heavenly combo locale out there with no car insurance and no property tax? lol.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

AHapka,

Thank you for your service and God bless you for it.

Our rule here is 15 or above gets the ticket.

Is this just a straight across guideline? To me 15 over on an interstate is different than 15 over in a 25 zone. Also it is different to me if there is heavy traffic vs light traffic, weather conditions ect. Has your discretion been taken away in this? I understand trying to have a uniformed enforcement strategy but I also think there must be some discretion for the officers. I have given many warnings for 15 over, and I have written citations for 15 under. For me it depends on the zone, traffic and weather just to name a few.

God bless you

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Oh, we also use laser on the interstate. It takes about 1-2 seconds to read a speed. So even if you have a laser detector you’d have to react very fast to slow down in time.

That’s why I don’t use my detector to avoid speed tickets. The state troopers here use them on our 2 major highways in the area, which happen to be the two I take every day to work. And as too many people have told me, once the radar detector detects the laser, it’s already too late. And I’ve heard they may not always detect the laser either.

Though you don’t need insurance in Wisconsin, so I’d only take your license…lol.

I have to move to this wonderful state.
And get rid of my financed car. I suppose the loan company would still require that I have insurance.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

I respect your position, but if you are stop and you were actually not speeding, this tells me more about the officer than it does the radar instrument.

Sorry you had that bad experience. Unfortunately, we have people who take out their bad days or are bad apples on other people here too. Though you don’t need insurance in Wisconsin, so I’d only take your license…lol.

I will say this. You guys seem like honest officers, judging from the comments.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t corruption out there either.

wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-040409-sjf-sctrooperspeeding.a188671d.html

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – The South Carolina trooper ticketed for driving 130 mph in a 70 mph zone has been removed from duty for driving with a suspended license.

Public Safety director Mark Keel told The State newspaper Senior Trooper J.D. McGaha was suspended Friday.

Officials say McGaha’s driver’s license was suspended Dec. 3 through Feb. 20 for failing to pay vehicle taxes. Keel says the fact McGaha drove a patrol car and cited people during that time could jeopardize cases he made.

Last month, McGaha was suspended from the Patrol after his unmarked car was stopped on Interstate 20 by another trooper. Keel said McGaha was assigned to direct traffic at the Carolina Cup and was running late.

McGaha has been with the Highway Patrol since 2005.

And these people have the ability to arrest me.