# How fast is too fast



## Guest (Jan 15, 2006)

Lately I keep seeing state cruisers flyby at 100+ mph with no lights or siren. I realize that they might be responding to a bank robbery or something, but I wish they would use their lights. So I had been wandering why they do that. 1) Are you only allowed to use lights and siren in case of emergency? 2) If you are responding to an emergency are you always supposed to use lights or is it up to the officer. 3) Are you allowed to speed without using lights and siren? Please help me to understand if these guys are driving like nuts because they know they can getaway with it, or it is part of their job and they are simply performing their duty. Thanks.


----------



## Curious EMT (Apr 1, 2004)

I'll vote for "simply performing their duty", though, their duty is not simple...


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

Answers to the questions:
1) No (many Traffic stops are not "emergencies" but lights are used.
2) No, we're not required to use your lights for responding to emergencies. The lights are to warn other drivers to get the hell out of my way because I may be saving someone's life.
3)Speeding? Are you sure? Are you using a radar device? Are you a certified operator? when is the last time the unit was calibrated? I highly doubt they are doing 100 mph with no where to go. Also, on Mass highways everyone is usually doing about 70 or 80 mph. Troopers do not stop everyone going over 55 - they would be in one spot all day if they did. They stop cars that are "Hazards". If the flow of traffic averages 75-80 mph, then the guy doing 90+ is the one the Trooper will stop. If you drive 55mph on any Highway in Mass, may god be with you because eventually someone will rear-end you.


----------



## Officer Dunngeon (Aug 16, 2002)

Here's a concept... how about just worrying about yourself instead of worrying about how other people do their jobs? Are you asking these questions because if you're told what you want to hear then you can gleefully attempt to get an officer in trouble (when you really don't know what the heck is going on), or are you asking because you truly are a concerned citizen and you feel that there is an outrageous number of police officers possibly breaking the law daily and maliciously, neglectfully and purposefully jeopardizing lives on the roads of the Commonwealth? :|


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

Officer Dunngeon said:


> Here's a concept... how about just worrying about yourself instead of worrying about how other people do their jobs?


That is exactly what a Judge said during a CMVI appeal. Defendant tried to use that one and got an earful from one of the more liberal judges, surprisingly. They don't take kindly to that...:cussing:


----------



## leigh147 (Jan 13, 2006)

what an asinine question. there is a reason they are called law enforcement. they represent the "law". Driving is a privilege, not a right, otherwise totally blind people would be allowed to drive. Its the same person who in the Emergency Room asks why did that guy(the guy with the blood pouring out of mouth) get taken before me? ( me having an earache for three days) "I was hear an hour before him"!


----------



## rscalzo (Sep 16, 2005)

_Have you been to NJ lately. Blind people are allowed to drive. How else would explain the road conditions in that state.._


----------



## s1w (Sep 12, 2005)

Where would MSP be "responding" to a bank robbery?


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

s1w said:


> Where would MSP be "responding" to a bank robbery?


Anywhere there's a bank with people inside it trying to steal money by force.


----------



## s1w (Sep 12, 2005)

Ya, sure


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Vut the heck!

As far as I know many troopers have a lot of area to cover between points, going to-from court etc. let it go fer crying out loud. 

Ever wonder how fast a Montana Trooper goes between two points?
:-k


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2006)

The cruiser is probably responding to the one thousand cell phone rangers and what they consider a road hazard or that an "erattic" driver purposely tried to run them of the road. 99% of the calls are BS, but you don't know that until you get there. Also, on trooper has many miles of road to cover. Mr Guest, if you are a reporter, instead of asking why the cruiser is going so fast, ask why the Commonawealth doesn't put more troopers on the road?


----------



## no$.10 (Oct 18, 2005)

*"unregistered"*

Next time you should chase that Trooper down, just keep on him until he stops, he will, eventually. When he does, exit your vehicle with your hands in the air and exclaim as loudly as you can (it is sometimes hard to hear over traffic) "*I am invoking the third principal!!"* Keep repeating this until you attract the attention of several other motorists. It would help to get their attention if you maybe tried to flag them down. Perhaps stepping out into the travel lane to get them to slow down. If you can attract enough attention, boy, will that Trooper be in trouble. He'll never speed again, I assure you. There is strength in numbers, so feel free to recruit other fine citizens to engage in similar behavior. I assure you, you will see some results.

Glad to be of assistance. These Troopers have been getting away with all of this for far too long.:wink:


----------



## Dr.Magoo (May 2, 2002)

MSP75 said:


> Mr Guest, if you are a reporter, instead of asking why the cruiser is going so fast, ask why the Commonwealth doesn't put more troopers on the road?


I totally agree. Too much road for too few Road Troopers. And if they drove the speed limit all the time.....image the traffic jams and accidents that would cause.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2006)

Dr.Magoo said:


> I totally agree. Too much road for too few Road Troopers. And if they drove the speed limit all the time.....image the traffic jams and accidents that would cause.


That is no joke. At 65 mph everyone else is at 55 mph. All the speeders catchup and then there is the moving parking lot. Then everyone is wishing the cruiser was going fast.


----------



## Officer Dunngeon (Aug 16, 2002)

no$.10 said:


> *"unregistered"*
> 
> Next time you should chase that Trooper down, just keep on him until he stops, he will, eventually. When he does, exit your vehicle with your hands in the air and exclaim as loudly as you can (it is sometimes hard to hear over traffic) "*I am invoking the third principal!!"* Keep repeating this until you attract the attention of several other motorists. It would help to get their attention if you maybe tried to flag them down. Perhaps stepping out into the travel lane to get them to slow down. If you can attract enough attention, boy, will that Trooper be in trouble. He'll never speed again, I assure you. There is strength in numbers, so feel free to recruit other fine citizens to engage in similar behavior. I assure you, you will see some results.
> 
> Glad to be of assistance. These Troopers have been getting away with all of this for far too long.:wink:


:L: :L: :L:

Great advice!


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2006)

Wow, it seems I struck a nerve. I did not mean to offend you guys, but it seems my question did just that, sorry. Let me clarify. I do not have a ticket. I have not had one since 1994. Therefore, comments like ‘talk to judge’ and ‘driving is privilege’ are misaddressed. Invoking the third law is funny, but if you were talking about Kevin Costner’s Postman, I believe it’s the eighth law. Of course I do not have a RADAR, but why would I need one? It is obvious these cops are driving like their hair is on fire. Whether it is 100mph or 120mph is irrelevant. 

Finally, I have no a problem with these troopers speeding, only with them not using their lights and siren. To me driving so fast without lights seems reckless. Yet, I see it 2-3 times a week, thus, there must be a reason. All I wanted to know is if there some obscure reason; like do not use lights and siren too often because it scares the public, or it lets helicopter reporters know there is a crime in progress, or some other nonsense. So, are there any such reasons? If no, then why aren’t these guys using their lights? Is it because they are only allowed to use them incase of emergency? I hope this clarifies my original question. Thanks.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

100-120? How do you know how to estimate the speed of a moving vehicle? Are you a certified radar operator with many years of experience that can estimate speeds of moving vehicles?


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

Yep, if you think they're going 100 to 120, the siren isn't going to do anything. And as far as the lights, they'll be pretty ineffective as they'll be on your ass before you even know it. There are many calls that police try to get to quickly without using lights and sirens. If its a trooper they normally will zip through the passing lane (aka the fast lane). If they come zipping up behind you and give you a heart attack then you should NOT be in that lane. "Guest" let me ask, how fast do you travel on the highway? I highly doubt Troopers were going 120mph, in some of those cruisers that's a death wish. If you are putt'n along at 60 mph, then yeah 80 will seem quite fast to you. Let me tell you, I often travel 80-85mph on a highway and thats just to keep up with the flow of traffic... A trooper my go 90+ and pull over anyone going faster than him/her. Again, I'm sure they have somewhere to go or there's a reason for it. They're not doing "100 mph" for a sunday drive.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2006)

In my experience, and this will go against most every response on this topic, there is no emergency out there that warrants a cruiser going in the neighborhood of 100 MPH without lights and sirens.

It's the old argument about responding to a silent burglar alarm at a business that more than likely goes off every time the wind blows or a bird flies by: Going full speed, and with or without a silent approach is ludicrious.

The likelihood of injuring or killing innocent civilians driving like this is far too high. When a cruiser is speeding, unseen and unheard in traffic, he/it becomes just as dangerous as the call he is responding to. We all want to go home to our families at night and so do the unsuspecting motorists that just might 'meet' that cruiser in a disastrous manner. It's not worth it and following department guidelines is a must.

A speeding cruiser at even 80 - 90 MPH is a 2 ton dangerous weapon.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruiser6 said:


> The likelihood of injuring or killing innocent civilians driving like this is far too high. When a cruiser is speeding, unseen and unheard in traffic, he/it becomes just as dangerous as the call he is responding to. We all want to go home to our families at night and so do the unsuspecting motorists that just might 'meet' that cruiser in a disastrous manner. It's not worth it and following department guidelines is a must.
> 
> A speeding cruiser at even 80 - 90 MPH is a 2 ton dangerous weapon.


Ever heard of Officer/Trooper discretion as well as driving skills?

I'll admit I don't watch the news all too often, but I have _never_ seen on TV or even heard of a MSP trooper causing an accident by doing this...and I'm pretty sure it would make the news, because people like you would cry foul about it all day long.

Even with lights and sirens, some people WILL NOT move out of your way. I have heard of people (typically foreigners) coming to a stop in a travel lane when a cruiser is behind them with lights and sirens - forcing the officer to go around them, which in my opinion, is less safe than just passing them on the right (which is legal by the way, if you wanted to look it up).

If you get into an accident, you may get a ticket. If they get into an accident, they may get suspended. They're on the road for 40 hours (or more) a week. I'd personally rather give them the discretion to do what they need to do their job, and not bitch about it.


----------



## futureMSP (Jul 1, 2002)

If 80 or 90 MPH is too dangerous a speed to travel I don't think I would ever be able to stop anybody on the interstate or other highways. I have had to stop people going 115MPH+ before... if I only traveled at 75 - 80 MPH I would never catch them....ever! We have training in Emergency Vehicle Operation for a reason.


----------



## Clouseau (Mar 9, 2004)

Unregistered, just to add a little to what has already been said, there are many times that a cruiser will "fly" through the city as well as the highway...without using sirens. As my buddy DCS would say, " The lemmings get confused and do stupid things when they hear sirens."

On that note, I'm going to leave you with a video to show you that sirens aren't as effective as you might think when traveling at highway speeds.

Sit back and enjoy the ride along. 
Hopefully afterwards, you won't question the tactics used in someone else's profession.
Oh, and when you hear gun shots....duck, because it's an AK -47 being fired... at you!
Turn up the volume so you can appreciate the officer's calmness during the situation.

This is just another day at the office ...when you play in the big league.

http://www.wpmi.com/mediacenter/default.aspx?videoId=116691


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2006)

Clouseau, that video was a grave reminder to always watch what the occupants are doing. You never know when the bad guy will send rounds down range.


----------



## tango2 (Sep 11, 2005)

Unregistered said:


> Wow, it seems I struck a nerve. I did not mean to offend you guys, but it seems my question did just that, sorry. Let me clarify. I do not have a ticket. I have not had one since 1994. Therefore, comments like 'talk to judge' and 'driving is privilege' are misaddressed. Invoking the third law is funny, but if you were talking about Kevin Costner's Postman, I believe it's the eighth law. Of course I do not have a RADAR, but why would I need one? It is obvious these cops are driving like their hair is on fire. Whether it is 100mph or 120mph is irrelevant.
> 
> Finally, I have no a problem with these troopers speeding, only with them not using their lights and siren. To me driving so fast without lights seems reckless. Yet, I see it 2-3 times a week, thus, there must be a reason. All I wanted to know is if there some obscure reason; like do not use lights and siren too often because it scares the public, or it lets helicopter reporters know there is a crime in progress, or some other nonsense. So, are there any such reasons? If no, then why aren't these guys using their lights? Is it because they are only allowed to use them incase of emergency? I hope this clarifies my original question. Thanks.


Mr. Unregisterd let me ask you a question. Do you ever sit and ask your self why the moron citizen speeding by you doesnt use lights ? By the sounds of your name you must have been cited before and know you have a hair across your ass. Just remeber one thing that speeding trooper your asking about is probably going to be the same person saving your life some day.


----------



## topcop14 (Jul 13, 2004)

Holy shit ! !

Do you think that cop fudged his undies?


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2006)

We're all hypocrites to some degree. We speed in our marked vehicles because our current speed limits (55/65) are often obsolete and unnecessary. They are not in place for safety reasons. Everybody knows that modern automobiles can travel safely at 90, 100+ mph (go to Germany and see). The argument for speeding, that we have a large patrol area to cover is as legitimate as John Q. Public's excuse that he has to get to work, pick up his kids, etc. I would estimate that 90% of the police vehicles that are speeding, to whatever degree, are infact not on any sort of call or response. Many of the responses in this thread exemplify the attitude that too many officers have that they are somehow better than the public we protect, which does not help the often negative public attitude towards law enforcement. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Officer Dunngeon (Aug 16, 2002)

:L:

Sounds like someone's fresh out of the academy...


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2006)

clouseau thanks for the video.........


----------



## Clouseau (Mar 9, 2004)

..

You're welcome Sniper.

*


MSP75 said:



Clouseau, that video was a grave reminder to always watch what the occupants are doing. You never know when the bad guy will send rounds down range.

Click to expand...

*Yes.. indeed. Did you guys see this one?

http://www.zippyvideos.com/8260119792783706/texas_shootout_1/


----------



## Nachtwächter (Dec 9, 2005)

Here's another good one.

http://uslawman.com/MontanaChaseShootout.wmv


----------



## badogg88 (Dec 17, 2003)

wow, how did that guy not get killed!


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Luck? Strong glass? Prayer?


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Here's the way I figure it...
The trooper has to go as fast if not faster than the fastest driver to scan and observe drivers on the road. Now if people actually went the speed limit, (s)he would have to go only 70 miles an hour. Since most seem to cruise at 70+ on a lot of the roads, the trooper is then forced to go faster...SO really it's not a question of why is the trooper is going so fast, that's an easy one,...(s)he is doing his/her job....more to the point why the fcuk is everyone else driving so fast.

Props to the troopers that do western MA Pike and 91 in holyoke etc...they get things done and I love watching them roll up on some guy driving like an ass weaving in and out of lanes...


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2006)

My name is Steve. I am the “Unregistered” who posted the original question and reply # 17. The rest of the posts are not mine, although I do agree with some of them. 

To those who gave genuine answers to my question, thank you. Although I still do not buy some of the arguments, now, I at least see that cops might choose to speed without using lights for “valid” reasons. Also thanks for the videos.


----------



## andyuxb (Mar 16, 2005)

Even before seeing those videos, I had wondered if bulletproof windshields were ever considered for police cruisers. I know that bulletproof doesnt mean they will stop everything shot at them, but it would likely help in cases like this. My guess is that money is the reason this doesnt happen. Anyone know if this has ever been considered?


----------



## andyuxb (Mar 16, 2005)

That makes sense. I never thought about the issue with the added weight. It's obvious that cruisers won't be getting the same treatment as a hmmwv rolling through Fallujah, but an armored windshield would protect Troopers in situations like the pursuit of armed suspects. But like you said, financially it just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

Quick scenario to give you an example:

You are sitting in a crossover, and someone goes by at 85 miles per hour. That equals approximately 125 feet per second. Let's say that after the vehicle goes by, it takes five seconds to put the cruiser in gear, find a safe hole in traffic to pull out of the crossover, and start accelerating. Then it takes another 15 seconds to get up to the same speed as the violator, 85 miles per hour. At this point, you are going the same speed as the violator, and he is 20 seconds, or 2500 feet ahead of you. That is almost a half mile. Now how fast do you have to go to make up almost a half mile on somebody that is going 85 miles per hour?


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

phuzz01 said:


> Quick scenario to give you an example:
> 
> You are sitting in a crossover, and someone goes by at 85 miles per hour. That equals approximately 125 feet per second. Let's say that after the vehicle goes by, it takes five seconds to put the cruiser in gear, find a safe hole in traffic to pull out of the crossover, and start accelerating. Then it takes another 15 seconds to get up to the same speed as the violator, 85 miles per hour. At this point, you are going the same speed as the violator, and he is 20 seconds, or 2500 feet ahead of you. That is almost a half mile. Now how fast do you have to go to make up almost a half mile on somebody that is going 85 miles per hour?


I became a Cop because I hate math. Leave me alone.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

The question isn't worded properly...as you can go 85.1 mph and catch up on someone going 85 MPH...you have to add how fast do you have to go to catch up on someone going 85 mph and do it in either a distance or a time.

Also note that most of the stuff at the begining is useless information...as it seems to be a question of catching up on someone going 85 MPH...and that's it.



phuzz01 said:


> Quick scenario to give you an example:
> 
> You are sitting in a crossover, and someone goes by at 85 miles per hour. That equals approximately 125 feet per second. Let's say that after the vehicle goes by, it takes five seconds to put the cruiser in gear, find a safe hole in traffic to pull out of the crossover, and start accelerating. Then it takes another 15 seconds to get up to the same speed as the violator, 85 miles per hour. At this point, you are going the same speed as the violator, and he is 20 seconds, or 2500 feet ahead of you. That is almost a half mile. Now how fast do you have to go to make up almost a half mile on somebody that is going 85 miles per hour?


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

bbelichick said:


> I became a Cop because I hate math. Leave me alone.


:L: :L: :L:


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

SOT_II said:


> The question isn't worded properly...as you can go 85.1 mph and catch up on someone going 85 MPH...you have to add how fast do you have to go to catch up on someone going 85 mph and do it in either a distance or a time.
> 
> Also note that most of the stuff at the begining is useless information...as it seems to be a question of catching up on someone going 85 MPH...and that's it.


A fair point, SOT, that you have to add in a reasonable distance or time over which you want to catch up. But provided that you do, the stuff in the begining is necessary, because you have to make up that ground in order to catch up.

My point, which was obviously lost, was that you can pull out after a speeder and find yourself pretty far back, and the butthead is still putting along at 85-90 like you were never there. In order to catch up, you have to go pretty fast. And if you hit your lights too early, you are just inviting the guy to take the next exit or speed up to get away. It is much easier to catch up first, then light him up.


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

bbelichick said:


> I became a Cop because I hate math. Leave me alone.


LOL, I guess you won't be putting in for the accident reconstruction team any time soon.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

phuzz01 said:


> LOL, I guess you won't be putting in for the accident reconstruction team any time soon.


No, I hated that part of the Academy. Too much like High School Algebra. I wouldn't want to do that or Commercial Vehicle Enforcement. To each their own.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

It wasn't lost I was just trying to answer the question ]



phuzz01 said:


> A fair point, SOT, that you have to add in a reasonable distance or time over which you want to catch up. But provided that you do, the stuff in the begining is necessary, because you have to make up that ground in order to catch up.
> 
> My point, which was obviously lost, was that you can pull out after a speeder and find yourself pretty far back, and the butthead is still putting along at 85-90 like you were never there. In order to catch up, you have to go pretty fast. And if you hit your lights too early, you are just inviting the guy to take the next exit or speed up to get away. It is much easier to catch up first, then light him up.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Several anti-cop posts deleted. Maybe this "Guest" thing isn't such a good idea...


----------



## speccop (Nov 21, 2005)

Clouseau said:


> On that note, I'm going to leave you with a video to show you that sirens aren't as effective as you might think when traveling at highway speeds.
> 
> Sit back and enjoy the ride along.
> Hopefully afterwards, you won't question the tactics used in someone else's profession.
> ...


Couldn't get the video to work :???:


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

Unregistered said:


> Lately I keep seeing state cruisers flyby at 100+ mph with no lights or siren. I realize that they might be responding to a bank robbery or something, but I wish they would use their lights. So I had been wandering why they do that. 1) Are you only allowed to use lights and siren in case of emergency? 2) If you are responding to an emergency are you always supposed to use lights or is it up to the officer. 3) Are you allowed to speed without using lights and siren? Please help me to understand if these guys are driving like nuts because they know they can getaway with it, or it is part of their job and they are simply performing their duty. Thanks.


Simply put we speed because we can!!! When I was in the academy SSPO class 1 our class watched a video of the New York State Police being followed by the the local news media about speeding to non emergency calls, the department was in a public relations dilemma. A result of the video, we as recruits could not speed going to and from the academy especially on West Brookfield Road (Mass State Police Academy) AKA Siberia, as a result we were taught / ordered not to speed etc....however what you did after graduating the academy was on your own. 
Now to get back to your question, do police speed to non emergency calls "yes", is it allowed "no". Those who do from time to time including myself will continue..We as police officer are danger freaks we are also speed freaks especially myself, most of us are addicted to coffee etc.. to give us that kick and adrenaline rush. Police officers dont live long because of this high stress we put on ourselves, oh well thats the nature of the beast and every officer knows it. There is not one police officer here that would not respond to a hazardous, dangerous or live threatening situation (at least I hope) so if we speed a little so what. As I say to my family and friends when they ask me why the officer was speeding or why an officer cuts them off? Is "because they can"!

The only town I know that worries about other officers speeding is Fitchburg

PS I am Irish Wampanoag, unregistered because I am to lazy!!!


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

> The only town I know that worries about other officers speeding is Fitchburg


Only deputies, not officers.


----------



## frapmpd24 (Sep 3, 2004)

To: Mr Citzen
From: The Police

Here is one for you, the cruiser that "flys by you", may indeed be going to a call. As stated before, with or without lights and sirens. Police do things in a tactical manner. Furthermore, coming into the area of certain crimes with the cruiser lit up like a space ship is not adventagous and will scare away the criminal breaking into your house, car, etc.

The trooper or officer "flying by you" on the highway may be headed to the area of _your_ town because there is an active call which they are monitoring on the scanner in their cruiser. The officer may be going closer to the area or town line having the intuition that the certain call for mutual aid is coming. Why you ask? Because they know their patrol area, officers from area towns, and the geography of getting somewhere the fastest way possible. At night, even more important that backup, wherever it may come from, is on the way. Back-up can come however they want (lights or not), as long as they get to me.

If your that concerned or nosey, go to radio shack and join the folks in scanner land, but you may not even hear the scoop as to what is going on then because we are the police, radios may be encripted. Otherwise, your not behind the wheel of the cruiser answering the calls and don't hear the dispatcher on the other end the radio calling you. Your in your private car, usually not getting out of the way regardless if the lights and sirens are on to begin with. Just because the officer "flys by you" at the peticular moment you happen to be on the road and does not have the lights and siren on, don't assume. It is that simple.


----------

