NJSP "Ghost" Cars

Interesting, good to know I haven't heard about this. Ill be leaving the car home this weekend. Probably be going out and Uber is pretty easy for where I will be.

 

Why are you complaining, that's not even unmarked?
That is the equivalent to a "low profile car" that Suffolk county has.
I don't think it's slimy. What would be slimy would be if an unmarked egged you on to race him, then you raced and he pulled you over and wrote you a ticket! Of course that's illegal also, that's entrapment. However, if YOU pull up to an unmarked and instigated a race, then he wrote you a ticket, then it's fair game and shame on you. If you get caught speeding on your own, well that's just bad luck on your part. I hate driving slow, so I risk it all the time. If I get a ticket....shame on me, not the guy doing his job.
In other words a "ghost car" or even an unmarked isn't a problem, the problem is that you are complaining that you can't comfortably break the traffic laws and want to only obey the law when the cop is around (visible). I totally understand your frustration, but the logic is a little flawed.
My turn to complain.........
The traffic laws really suck. They need to adjust them for modern times, especially the speed limit. The limits were set excessively low back in the 70's when there was the gas crisis. The cars nowadays get better mileage, have less emissions, better tires, better suspension, better handling etc. A modern car can probably travel safer at 80 mph, than the 1970's cars could at 55 mph. They need to raise the speed limits to a reasonable amount. I think 75mph on the highway is completely reasonable. (just my opinion of course)
As far as taxes go, it's gotten completely insane around here and LI was ranked as the most expensive place to live in the US! It's completely ridiculous. The worst part is that with all the tax money we pay, one would think that we would at least have decent roads to drive on. I think the moon surface would make a better surface than the garbage we have to drive on!
And guns? I would love to see every law abiding citizen (that qualifies with stringent back ground checks, classroom and field education, refresher courses, mandatory safes in residence to safeguard weapon etc.) have the right to carry a weapon for protection. This way the bad guys would think twice before committing violent crimes! The unfortunate part of that would be that there would definitely be an increase in firearm accidents. However, in my opinion, I still think it would be a good tradeoff.
Ok, it's late now, and I'm just rambling.....good night

 

Just finished reading about this.

I am not anti-cop whatsoever, but this is a way to generate revenue and nothing else. NJ has also had some notable cases of "police impersonators."

I also disagree with the target solely on speeding (that's how I interpreted the chief's comments) - there are far more dangerous behaviors I witness everyday than someone doing 20 over the speed limit.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I can spot an "unmarked" car from miles away. To me, this car is business as usual.

Look out for cars like these just as you would for standard highway patrol cars and you'll be fine..

 

Ghost cars have been employed by at least three Westchester Co. depts I can think of for 3 or 4 years now. I think they're pretty slick, though unnecessary since a plain old unmarked unit is just as inconspicuous. Have no problem with them, and hopefully they catch more the menace drivers I see multiple times every day - and no, not those just pushing the speed limits a bit (it's the speeders executing unsafe lane changes, etc, that need to be got).

 

I don't think there should be unmarked cars.
Paint them black & white. Blue & White...something ostentatious. Make sure the light bar on top is of significant size. Large shields on the sides.

Let everyone see these cars around.

What happens when folks see normal patrol cars?
The abide by the law.
Now isn't that the point?
If you blow by a black & white....well, tough.

 

The purpose of unmarked police cars is not only for sneaking on innocent citizens but to catch the bad guys. By "innocent" I mean drivers not obeying the traffic laws. Unfortunately, we (drivers) do not like that because we do not consider our selves as bad guys when we break the traffic laws. So we think that when police is using unmarked cars to catch us isn't fair. I have a relative who is a police officer and he is working on cases. He always tells me that the necessity of using unmarked vehicles is extremely important on resolving most of the cases.

 

True, but if we are just speaking in regards to speeding, and in terms of the most commonly used methods for detecting speed (i.e. radar or laser), they will need to be at a fixed reference point while you go by.

 

Negative, radar can be used rolling - same or opposing direction.

 

And speed estimation is still an effective way to give tickets. But look for reckless or careless driving rather than a speeding ticket.

 

Yes, but now the ticketing authority may need to provide both radar gun as well as speedometer calibration records during discovery, among other things, effectively increasing the authority's burden to prove guilt. Idk, my opinion is that it's a lot harder to be pulled over for speeding by a rolling ghost car than it is for a stationed car on the side of the road..

 

You have it exactly opposite!
Police officers are trained in "independent visual speed estimation" of a motor vehicle. They take a course and have to be within +/- 5 MPH to pass the course and write tickets (most are accurate between 3 mph after a few hrs of field practice). An officer can not testify in court that the laser said that you were doing X miles/hr. The officer does testify that based on a visual speed estimation, you were doing X miles/hr, then the laser said x miles/hr which corroborates his/her independent estimation. It is totally legal for him/her to write the ticket based solely on visual estimation only, but of course it's weaker in court that way. They can also do a pace on you using their "certified" speedometer. It's certified....every few months, the motor carrier safety unit places the car on a dynamometer type of machine to check the speedometer, then files an official certification with the traffic court so they have it on file.
Another "catch all" that an officer can use is if there are several violations that, when added together, show that you are a danger to other motorists, is reckless driving! That's a bad one because you get charged with a misdemeanor instead of a simple violation. They can also impound the car if they choose.

In the above scenario regarding a rolling patrol unit, it's a best scenario case.
The officer can testify that they did an independent speed estimation, followed for x distance all while verifying the info with the radar! Bottom line.......good luck in court trying to beat it. It's not a "burden", it's actually a speeder handed to the officer on a silver platter.
Also, contrary to what a lot of people think, the officer couldn't care less if he/she wins or loses in court (unless it became personal during the stop). They just do their job, present the evidence/reason they wrote the ticket and let the administrative judge determine what they think. It's no skin off of the officers back if the person is found not guilty.

 

Not much of a burden to furnish that documentation. And as up4speed nicely explained an (i.e. a visual-estimation certified) officer's mere visual speed estimation is sufficient as far as the courts are concerned, the measurement tools are corroborative and just bolster the case. You're certainly entitled to/to espouse your opinion, but you've represented as fact that a radar reading needs to be ascertained from a fixed position, and that just ain't true.