PA Speeding Statistics

(In 2000) 12,626 were killed in speeding-related crashes across the country.

Of these 12,626 - 582 were killed in PA.

314 died on non-interstates with a posted speed limit less than 55mph, but greater than 35mph.

Speeding is a factor in 30% of all fatal crashes.

(In 2000) $1,114,000 was spent in Pennsylvania associated with these crashes.

In America, 75% of all roads are under the jurisdiction of local government (cities, towns and counties).

Pennsylvania is the ONLY state where municipal police officers are not allowed, by law, to use radar for speed enforcement!

Where to find more information?

www.nhtsa.dot.gov

www.autoaccidentlegalcenter.com

www.saferoads.org

In Pennsylvania, lawmakers trust police officers with guns that kill, but not with a gun to . . .

issue a traffic ticket?

In every state except Pennsylvania, municipal police officers are authorized to use radar to enforce speed limits.  But in this state, only the Pennsylvania State Police have the authority to use radar, still one of the most effective and accurate speed control devices available.  Access to using radar has been denied to local police by the state legislature for over 40 years.

During those 40 years, local police have asked legislators for this authority countless times. Every effort has been thwarted in some form or another.  Bills have been introduced in every session, but they either die in committee or contain provisions that no one could realistically support.

Over the years, local police have dispelled numerous myths as to why they were not included. For example, some opponents have alleged that local police are not well trained; in actuality they receive over 750 hours of training and annual updates.

Municipal police have also been accused of wanting radar to generate revenue for their municipality.  In fact, a provision has been added to legislation to prevent this from happening.  Currently, municipal police have other tools available to write traffic citations and, if they so intended, to make traffic control a revenue generator.  However, this is certainly not a widespread practice now, nor would it be if the technology was improved.  This apprehension is misplaced and the sentiment itself is unfair and insulting to Pennsylvania’s professional law enforcement community.  Your local police chiefs are not interested in serving as the “cash collector” for local government.  Instead, their concerns are for public welfare and how to keep the streets and highways safe for motorists -- the people the chiefs and their officers are sworn to protect and serve.

When, and if, undertaking traffic control, municipal police are currently forced to rely upon lesser technology, such as ESP (Excessive Speed Preventer), VASCAR or Accutrak, devices.  These methods of speed enforcement operate like a stopwatch and require the use of physical markers, such as lines painted on the road.  Police officers then start and stop the device to determine a vehicle’s rate of speed. Defense lawyers challenge the accuracy of the calculated speed, because a police officer has to manually operate the instrument.  By this time, the issue of traffic safety is almost totally forgotten.

 Day in and day out, thousands of men and women in "blue" lay their lives on the line to protect the citizens of this Commonwealth.  They are given a gun in order to protect citizens against deadly force.  Why then would they not be issued tools to protect citizens in traffic situations, which can often be just as deadly? Local police have fought this battle for forty years, yet the legislature continues to deny them from using one of the best tools available to help save lives and, therefore, to serve the public, to reduce crime and to give local communities the right to self-governance, service and public safety.   It would take a one mere sentence change in the Vehicle Code to include municipal police and to allow their use of this valuable tool.  Why then, does this inequity continue?

Legislation is again being circulated to provide the use of radar to municipal police officers.  The bill will contain the following provisions: 

• Designed to address potential abuse.
  • Use permitted only by full time police officers
  • Employed by full time, full service police agencies
  • Requires an approved course of training
  • Control of perceived use as a revenue generator:  Generation of revenue demonstrated if 5% or more of the total municipal revenue is derived from traffic fines
• Provides for periodic testing and calibration of all devices itself as prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
• Provides that officer(s) using the devise must be visible to the motoring public
• Violations under 10 MPH over speed limit will not receive points
• Local Ordinance required to enforce
• Signs indicating detection of speed violations must be posted on main arteries in to the municipality to advice the motoring public
• Legislation is supported by not only police organizations, but also local government associations such as PA State Association of Boroughs, PA State Association of Township Supervisors, PA League of Cities and Municipalities, PA State Association of Township Commissioners as well as MADD, the general public and many local community elected officials.
• Developed by the state and local law enforcement community in conjunction with the General Assembly who initially were not in support of the use of radar by local police.

   

   

  Currently permitted speed enforcement technology:

  • Have limited use in congested or residential areas

  • Manpower intensive requiring more than one officer in order to be effective

  • Susceptible to human error

  • Difficult to use at night and in inclement weather

  • Have greater impact on officer safety