Megan Slayback
Dr. Heitmann
HST 485
Reactions to the Speed Trap in the 1920’s
Early motorists embraced the freedom and excitement that the automobile could provide, but within this liberty, speeding proved to be one of the most appealing, yet illegal, advancements from the complex technology of the automobile. Finding the need to restrict and regulate the allowed speed of the automobile, the speed trap developed into an undesired hassle for the early motorist and a seemingly annoying part of the law. Speed traps and speed trap legislation was a highly debated form of legal police tactics in the 1920’s which drew support and opposition from drivers alike. A portion of motorists felt the speed trap was used unfairly for generating extra money towards the state or local government while others felt it was a positive addition of methods used in successfully limiting the speeds of drivers. Attacked in newspapers and literature, the speed trap, historically, seemed for many motorists to represent the growth of authority in regards to restrictions on the motorists, a growth which was an unnecessary irritation for the motorist.
To historian David Blanke, it is clear that “From the very beginning, automobilists expressed a love for speed.”[1] For drivers, “Like a narcotic, the thrill of speed was obtained only through greater and greater doses.”[2] Whether the love generated from the automobile to the motorists was found in the promise of the open road or in the excitement of the possibility to explore the previously foreign, the speed a car could provide was one of the main appeals to the automobile. Reckless or controlled, after the advancement and ownership of the automobile became more common, those involved with public safety aimed to restrict and limit automotive speed reached by drivers on the roadways. One of the early attempts to reduce the speed permitted by the governments for drivers was the ‘speed trap’ tactic. To Horace Sutton, “The history of speed traps began almost with the emergence of the automobile.”[3] The basic concept of a speed trap consisted, and still consists today, of a mobile policeman stationing themselves in a hidden or specifically tricky position, hard to be identified by drivers, and wait for motorists to pass going speeds higher than legally regulated on a certain stretched of road. Once a motorist would pass who was going above the appropriate speed, they would then be pulled over, ticketed with a traffic violation, and would either have to appear before court or forced to pay a fine for the violation.
The popular motorist reaction to this implemented tactic of catching speeders, in most cases, was not at all considered positive in the least. Blanke identifies that “The public response to the ‘speed traps’ proved predictable. They saw them as ‘unfair,’ ‘unreasonable,’ and ‘worse than absurd.’”[4] As much as safety reforms called for certain speed limitations an automobile could achieve, drivers were, and remain today, unwilling to reduce the speeds they reach during driving to match the legal regulations and restrictions placed on them. The speed trap became the enemy for the motorist, a sentiment which is reflected still today in American automobile culture. The legality of these early speed traps, focused in the 1920’s, was questioned and, evident within auto literature or automotive related news articles of the time, the traps were regarded as unwanted and unappreciated tools used by local or state government through the police department for corrupt purposes. Legally stated in a writing of a recent decision of California law, “The speed trap is defined as a portion of the highway measured or marked off within the vision of the officers so they may calculate the speed of vehicles by using the elapsed time it takes them to traverse the speed.”[5] Basic arguments against speed traps consider, or a definition which closely resembles it, the definition of what they were attacking.
Examples of early speed traps recount basic, primary attempts of police to try to slow down a noticed speeder by any means possible. In one area of the country, police would disguise themselves as road workers ready to throw a rope across the road in order to stop any car suspected of speeding.[6] In other areas of the country, motor-cycle cops, ready to pursue a speed violator as a mobile force, were the face of speed regulations.
The speed trap became a detested practice of law enforcement and quickly became unpopular. The New York Times wrote that many “Automobilists have raged against ‘speed traps,’ that is to say devices or conspiracies to catch them in the act of exceeding the speed limit on what is frequently perjured testimony.”[7] Viewed as a “conspiracy” and a “device,” popular opinion of the speed trap is negative. Was it the opinion of the motorists that the right to speed being so crucially connected to the right to own and operate an automobile the fact that speed traps were detested or the fact that any limits were generally placed on the motorists upset the motorist? There are reasonable facts and reasoning to support each particular claim as being relevant to the opinions of the motorists.
Drivers saw these traps more as annoyances which needed to be avoided and which were implanted to interrupt their driving experience or daily commute on the road. Any consequences of speeding were not seen as excessively important to early drivers to necessitate speed traps and it became more a point of pride to avoid and reject the authority found in the speed trap. For many motorists, speed traps seemed unfair to drivers who considered themselves safe or responsible, no matter the speed. In one piece of literature, a critique of speed traps is made that “Speed traps are established and, the average motorists, who may be only slightly and unintentionally exceeding the speed limits, is fined and subjected to great inconvenience.”[8] To early motorists, “The speed limits, as set by the state laws, are so low in most instances that they are violated regularly by almost every motorist on the road.”[9] If one driver who committed the act of speeding did not receive a consequence for their speeding based on their avoidance of the speed trap, it could be considered a reasonable argument that other drivers should also not be burdened with a fee or fine based on speed traps. Speeding had become such a large part of the motorist’s appeal to the automobile and the act of driving that regulations controlling it became irritations. It was a commonly held opinion that what needed to be protested was “…’speed traps’ and freak traffic rules which will make life miserable for the motorist.”[10]
Many drivers felt that speeding, in many cases, was not the problem on the road but rather the dangerousness of the driver within the car. In fighting the opposition to speed traps, the American Automobile Association, or the A.A.A. argued that “Other recommendations of the program are that arrests be based on recklessness rather than ‘technical’ speed violations and that evidence obtained by ‘speed traps’ be barred by law.”[11] Obtaining and using evidence gathered by speed traps, explained later in this writing, was a point of great distain but this need would have been eliminated if, argued by those like the A.A.A., police force focused rather on reckless drivers and not safe drivers, even if they were going over the designated speed limit.
Corruption or injustice seemed to motorists to be the driving force behind the heightened importance placed on of the speed trap and why they focused on the average motorist. Another mention of speed traps in the New York Times came in the context of a developing story involving the American Automobile Association and its president, Thomas P. Henry. According to the article, “War has been declared by the American Automobile Association, on roadside courts which mulct motorists out of millions of dollars a year in the form of unjust fines.” [12] It continues to call them “’…intolerable nuisance’ to people who travel on the highways in automobiles”[13] and that these “…speed traps were ‘operated for revenue only.’”[14] For many police, at the state and local levels motorists understood that, “Their salary in many cases is contingent upon the number of arrests they make, and naturally they are going to make as many as they can.”[15] As with arrests, fine and fees which are paid to either the state or local government then directly or indirectly contribute to a specific police force which is a process to the collection of speed fines and the distribution to different government institutions.
The reasons behind the speed trap and those caught speeding became questionable to motorists, and are still questionable today, because of how much those tickets and fines are connected to the income or institution of the police who give them out. Within the 1920’s, examples and arguments surfaced which showed that “’…courts are not only ignorant of the law but many times they violate the State statutes in imposing fines and taking money as they do.’”[16] Witnesses gave instances such as “’…in North Carolina…court and speed trap were converted into a family institution”[17] and that “’The spoils are thus kept in the family…’”[18] Another example of corruption within the legal system regarding speed traps made accusations of “One justice of the Peace in Ohio took in $3,500 in fines on motorists in tow months…” and that “The Justice pocketed $1,600…while only slightly more than $200 found its way into the county treasury.”[19] Others identified corruption not with only the fines or fees collected but those who collected the fees. In one instance, “Evidence of extortion, blackmail and conspiracy to defraud has been obtained against twenty Police Magistrates and Justices of the Peace and sixteen motorcycle speed officers in outlying towns and townships…”[20] Corruption with early speed traps and speed trap fines contributed to the distrust and dissatisfaction concerning this institution. These cases of corruption contributed to the larger distrust and dissatisfaction found with the police who used this method.
Motorists called for a regulation of these fines and fought for “A resolution advocating a law providing that all funds thus collected must be turned over to the State was referred to a committee which will report…”[21] about the collection and the amount of funds during meetings annually. Small towns and villages were especially identified as being places where corruption occurred. These villages were notorious for changing their speed limits as to catch tourists or unknowing motorists going a speed which they thought was the regulated limit only to find they were speeding according unnoticed changes in these small village limits. Complaints resounded that “Motorists may be affected in one town for not doing what they would be arrested for doing in the next town.”[22]
Another aspect that many Americans embraced within the automotive love affair was the feeling of brotherhood with other motorists on the road. It was a shared experience to drive on the road. As previously stated, since the speed trap would be used as a tactic to force drivers to reduce speed and also to gain income for the police, motorists became accustomed to avoiding them. As well as individually avoiding traps, many drivers promoted and shared information about the whereabouts of stationed speed traps in order to warn and help other drivers avoid them as well. Tourists were a select group of motorists who felt the effects of traps that were different depending on regions, cities, towns, or municipal jurisdictions. It was a shared experience with law and hassle seen in the speed traps. The brotherhood found in driving translated into a brotherhood of comradery against them.
It would be reasonable to assume that many motorists felt, during the 1920’s as well as still today, that drivers are bonded in their opposition to the law. Motorists felt the need to work together to avoid speed traps and to avoid the penalties which come with being pulled over. Warnings would circulate about the location of possible speed traps and alternate routes to avoid them. This communal sharing of information did not remain in the 1920’s, though, and today, it is common for divers to see another motorist motion or flash their bright lights at another to warn of an upcoming police officer. In the 1920’s, automotive associations and organizations provided information about speed traps and published information which would take some of the authority from officers who operated these speed traps and place it back into the hands of the motorist. If a speed trap was not a secret entity, there was less chance for police to catch drivers speeding and ignorant of an officer awaiting them. Even today, motorists tend to speed in areas where they know cops are less likely to patrol and slow down on roads or through intersections where there is a notorious police presence. Every community has notorious stents of roads where police are more likely to patrol and more known for pulling drivers over.
One popular source of information which might post information on how to avoid or identify areas with speed trap would be in widely read automotive magazines of the time. In general, early motorist magazines would give advice to readers on car related topics such as repairs, new models, and legislation or political topics which might affect a motorist. Within these topics, there was the possibility of warnings for speed traps. One such magazine was Motor, and their 1923 publication openly warned against speed traps. Found in a section entitled “Along the Road with the Editor,” motorists are told that they should “Watch for the speed traps while touring.”[23] The section goes on to tell the reader that “Motor clubs try to post signs-but you probably pay little or no attention to them.”[24] Warning tourists of the possibility of speed traps and acknowledging the practice by motor clubs of their attempts to identify probable locations shows that drivers were not alone in their distaste for speed traps. It is followed with sympathy to those who felt the consequences of a speed trap by expression that “There is no remedy after one of the yearly pests of the motoring crop pinches you.”[25]
In response to the reporting and identifying of speed traps, authorities found they were largely helpless to stop these happenings. Common knowledge, it is not a crime to gossip about the location of something or the position of a car, though research would most likely reveal cases of this accusation occurring. In the development of a speed trap, it was important to have a secretive aspect of the trap as to catch speed violators without giving them the possibility of slowing down or changing speed to then be within limited speeds. It was socially accepted that “Most motorists, whether they be on transcontinental trips of not, break the state highway laws practically every time they go out in a motor car.”[26] This occurred because, in early years of automotive developments, speed limits changed from place to place and were usually not obviously marked for the driver. An example from England shows that other governments were having similar, but not identical, experiences with regulating aspects of drivers and people sharing information about the locations of speed traps. Used as an example for those in the States obviously from its publishing in the New York Times, one particular English incident in a news story shows that “It is no offense to warn a person who is about the break the law…”[27] as shown by the fact that a magistrate had “…held in dismissing an Automobile Association scout who was charged with warning motorists of the existence of a speed trap.”[28] Motorists used this as reasoning or a comparative international example for similar American cases.
Other sources of literature for motorists could be more specific than the above example warning about the location of traps. Organizations such as the Automobile Club of America would give information to the newspapers, for example information published in the New York Times, warning of exact locations of speed traps. For example, they report of “…a speed trap in operation north of Hohokus, between that town and Allendale.”[29] That excerpt continues to tell readers that “They make a practice of stationing themselves at sharp turns to observe the rate at which motorists take the curves.”[30] Another example of the incredibly specific detailed information published about a speed trap was provided by the Cincinnati Auto Club is in their report of things they accomplished in the year. They were proud to share with the magazine and readers that they accomplished “…breaking up speed traps at Xenia and North College Hill, Ohio…”[31] among their other activities. Breaking up or identifying a speed trap was seen as heroic work and work which would benefit all motorists alike and not a specific section.
Legally speaking, many motorists became frustrated with accusations and the legal or monetary repercussions they experienced because of being pulled over by police in a speed trap. The efforts and protests of these motorists against speed traps, though, did begin to influence legislation, seen even within the 1920’s. Through actions of organizations like A.A.A. and individuals who brought their cases and personal complaints to courts, the validity of the speed trap as a solid source of evidence was began to change and change also affected the authority of the speed trap lessened. There were discrepancies between those opinions which supported the use of speed trap evidence as valid testimony for finding a speeder guilty and those who advocated speed trap evidence not being used in a court room setting. When cases were presented before courts, in early instances, speed trap evidence was used in convicting a certain motorist of a speeding crime and therefore burdening them with the financial consequences. As time progressed, motorists began to backlash against officers who operated speed traps as not having concrete measuring tools which could be used in a court of law. This was a time prior to the radar gun used for detection which was developed in the 1950’s. In the eyes of motorists who were adverse to the method, there were some positive steps taken in curbing the use in regards to a tactic and as reputable evidence in a court of law.
In early court documents within the state of California, speed traps were already being dismissed as proper evidence which could be used in accusing a driver. Items such as the “Speed Trap Law,” found in the California legislation Motor Vehicle Act of 1923, also called the California Vehicle Act of 1923, restricted the speed trap’s use. It stated that “…in short that no evidence as to the speed of a vehicle shall be admitted in the trial of a person arrested for speeding when such evidence was connected with or based upon the use of a speed trap…”[32] or that within the courtroom, the “…testimony…from an officer arresting…when a speed trap was used in making of the arrest, or if such officer was not at the time of such arrest in uniform in plain sight on the highway”[33] could not be used in accusing the motorist.
The concept of the hidden speed traps versus identifiable speed traps seemed to be a point prominent to many of motorists who protested the use of the speed trap. In the magazine Motor Age, it is identified that “Speed officers in California are accustomed to establishing ‘traps’ on the highways and hiding out while awaiting the coming of a victim.”[34] The important concept to note is the accusation of the traps being hidden; the lack of sufficient identification was the problem. As stated before, legislation in California dismissed the testimony of an officer who was not fully identified or properly uniformed.
An example of legislation based on the clear identification of officers was the California Vehicle Act of 1923. Continuing on, amendments in 1929 further emphasized the importance of officers clearly marking themselves if they would have creditability translatable in the courtroom. In these amendments, officers “’…shall be dressed in a full distinctive uniform,’ and that no officer shall ‘use an automobile…unless such automobile is painted a distinctive color such as may be determined upon by the division of motor vehicles.’”[35] With these new required regulations for officers, the use of a speed trap and officers who met all requirements for speed enforcement found more creditability within motorist circles. In places such as California, police were making changes and began meeting requirements in order for their testimonies to be considered legitimate.
In Maine, legislation and police were also changing and the change was highlighted. It was made clear to motorists and tourists that “…roads are patrolled by motorcycle officers in uniform.”[36] Also, they explained that the old ways of the speed trap are gone and that “The village constable who used to hide in a speed-trap to catch the car hurtling alone at twenty miles an hour now grumbles…”[37] because of the state’s decision that “Speed-traps have been abolished and any driver who proceeds at a reasonable speed has nothing to fear.”[38] Within Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, motor-cycle police were seen as setting a “…splendid example to other motor-cycle organizations throughout the country by appearing upon the county highways in full police uniform.”[39] Because of this identification, they could be respected as law enforcers and “…not operators of speed traps awaiting the unwary motorist who chance to infringe on the speed laws of their vicinity.”[40]
Through regulation, motorists were slowly coming to the accepted heightened legitimacy within speed trap officers and a growing sense of fairness in the accusations of speeding. Municipal institutions were making it a point of pride for officers in a car or on a motor-cycle to be properly identified. If not considered fair, the speed trap became somewhat more justifiable to motorists in the opinions of the police because the police operated through the regulations placed on them. Through identification, there was a renewed respect for the automotive authority and their methods.
As well as creating regulations for officers in how they present themselves to the public and how well they identify themselves, individual States were making efforts to consolidate speed limits for motorists as well. For example, in New York in 1923, “Regulations of the speed of motor vehicles on State roads running through sparsely settled villages or sections of cities would be denied to local authorities…”[41] and that with making the speed limits on certain roads or in certain areas the same, it would “…eliminate speed traps through which many of the small straggling villages of the State yearly receive large revenue in fines…”[42] collected through these unpopular speed traps. Motorists, then, could not find fault in speed limits and being pulled over in a speed trap if the motorists knew what these uniform speeding limits were. Even organizations like the A.A.A., supported uniform methods of determining speeding. It was on record that “The American Automobile Association announced today that it would support a program of placing all main highways of the country under State road patrols…in order to ‘rid motordom of its worst infestation, the speed trap and the road side court.’”[43]
Presenting the opposition, many legal authorities saw laws and developing regulations like these as a hindrance to the reform, regulation, and restriction of speeders. They argued that acts like these, even if they appealed to the motorist, kept officers from having the power to effectively hold motorists accountable when they catch them speeding. Some who studied the case with the use of the “Speed Trap Law” in California argued that “…the existence of an act which seems somewhat absurd; for the legislation prohibits speeding and at the same time takes the teeth out of the law by prohibiting the means leading to…efficient enforcement of the speed laws.”[44] Officers were faced with the conflict of conforming to regulations and the need to enforce the speed limit. There needed to be a balance struck between the ability to catch and convict a speeder and to find respect from the motorists and a recognized authority within their actions. Legality and validity have always affected police and legal enforcement.
No matter how unpopular the concept of the speed trap was to the motorist, the basic function behind its creation was based on the motorist’s unwillingness to compromise between their love of speed and the regulations upon that speed which were placed and if a speed trap was not the desired way to catch speeders, other regulations would be looked into. Uniform traffic laws were more attractive to motorists then the speed trap and were more likely to be observed or considered fair. Based on the popular arguments, like those from Thomas Henry of the A. A. A., courts were put in the unique position of determining what should be considered legal and lawful concerning speed enforcement. Officers needed to adapt their methods of catching and accusing speeders to be in compliance to the new regulations in order to have their testimonies be considered creditable. Legislation like this is seen as the base for modern day police tactics and restrictions with regards to speed limit enforcement.
Motorists were crucial in bringing complaints against the authorities and courts and were greatly responsible for the modifying of laws and in creating new legislation which would hold motorists accountable for either obeying or disobeying the set legal limit and hold police responsible for more uniform enforcement of the limits. The automotive love affair, which Americans greatly accepted, is directly tied to freedom and liberation tied to the speeds which can be gained in an automobile. Either getting to a destination faster than expected or to feel the open air rush past as the car metaphorically flies down a highway, the speed a motorist can accomplish is a tempting aspect of the automobile. Safety concerns and basic legislation restricting the automobile aimed to limit the speed in the hopes of increasing this safety and decreasing speed related accidents or incidents. Early motorists had to deal with the speed trap as well as other legislation which reduced their perceived freedom of the automobile and the freedom of the open road. When there was any restriction of an aspect in the love affair, motorists react negatively. Whether the speed trap, in the 1920’s, was considered a hassle or considered a necessary but annoying realization, it is part of early attempts to regulate drivers into follow the speed limits. Speed traps were used, favorably or not, in the hopes of regulating speed and drivers and have become a part of the cultural and social aspects of automotive history which still affects the relationship between motorists and the authorities even today.
Works Cited
“78 Bills Aimed to Regulate Automobile in California: Measure Introduced in Legislature Cover Wide Range of Restrictions,” Motor Age, 1 March 1923, 33.
“A New View of Motor Vehicle Taxes,” Automotive Industries, 8 March 1923, 585.
“Accuses 20 Magistrates. Chicago Prosecutor Gets Evidence of Blackmailing Motorists in Outlying Towns,” New York Times (1857-1922), 22 October 1921, 10.
“Along the Road with the Editor,” Motor, 1923, 27.
“Are Transcontinental Record Drives Dangerous to Traffic?” Motor Age,3 August 1916, 32.
“Automobile Reform in Sight,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 22 March 1924.
Blanke, David. Hell on Wheels: The Promise and Peril of America’s Car Culture, 1900-1940. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas, 2007.
“Condemns ‘Speed Traps,’” New York Times (1857-1922), 14 July 1921, 7.
“Increased Accidents Due to Speed Required in Modern Business,” Automotive Industries, 11 October 1923, 752.
Matthews, Charles H. "Recent Legislation." California Law Review 18, no. 1 (1929): 40-43.
Motor Age. 13 May 1920, 22-23.
"Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): 142-143.
Scott, J. B. “Milwaukee County Police Abolish Speed Traps,” The American City, vol. 27 (1922): 112.
Spearing, James O. “At the Wheel,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 26 August 1928.
Sutton, Horace. "Way Back When: Frisky, Risky Birth of the Auto Age." Smithsonian 11, no. 6 (1980): 135-148.
“Tips on Speed Traps No Crime in England,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 24 July 1926.
“Uniform Traffic Law is Coming,” Automotive Industries, 20 December 1923, 1270.
“War Is Declared on Road Courts: American Automobile Associate Says Justice Mulct Motorists of Millions of Dollars,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 20 September 1925.
“'Ware the speed traps,” New York Times (1857-1922), 24 July 1921.
“Will Fight Speed Traps: A. A. A. Will Urge National Abolishing of Fee System Arrests,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 29 November 1925.
“Would End Village Speed Traps,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 17 April 1923.
[1] David Blanke, Hell on Wheels: The Promise and Peril of America’s Car Culture, 1900-1940 (Lawrence, KA: The University of Kansas Press, 2007), p. 71
[2] Ibid., p. 71
[3] Sutton, Horace. "Way Back When: Frisky, Risky Birth of the Auto Age." Smithsonian 11, no. 6 (1980):p. 135.
[4] David Blanke, Hell on Wheels: The Promise and Peril of America’s Car Culture, 1900-1940 (Lawrence, KA: The University of Kansas Press, 2007), p. 189
[5] "Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): p. 142.
[6] Sutton, Horace. "Way Back When: Frisky, Risky Birth of the Auto Age." Smithsonian 11, no. 6 (1980): p. 135.
[7] “Automobile Reform in Sight,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 22 March 1924.
[8] “Are Transcontinental Record Drives Dangerous to Traffic?” Motor Age , (3 August 1916): p. 32.
[9] Ibid., p. 32.
[10] “A New View of Motor Vehicle Taxes,” Automotive Industries, (8 March 1923): p. 585.
[11] “Will Fight Speed Traps: A. A. A. Will Urge National Abolishing of Fee System Arrests,” New York Times (1923- Current File), (29 November 1925).
[12]“War Is Declared on Road Courts: American Automobile Associate Says Justice Mulct Motorists of Millions of Dollars,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (20 September 1925): p. 15.
[13] Ibid., p.15.
[14] Ibid., p.15.
[15] Scott, J. B. “Milwaukee County Police Abolish Speed Traps,” The American City, vol. 27 (1922): p. 112.
[16] War Is Declared on Road Courts: American Automobile Associate Says Justice Mulct Motorists of Millions of Dollars,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (20 September 1925): p. 15.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] “Accuses 20 Magistrates. Chicago Prosecutor Gets Evidence of Blackmailing Motorists in Outlying Towns,” New York Times (1857-1922),( 22 October 1921): p. 10.
[21] “Condemns ‘Speed Traps,’” New York Times (1857-1922), (14 July 1921): p.7.
[22] “Uniform Traffic Law is Coming,” Automotive Industries, (20 December 1923): p. 1270.
[23] “Along the Road with the Editor,” Motor, (1923): p. 27.
[24] Ibid., p. 27.
[25] Ibid., p. 27.
[26] “Are Transcontinental Record Drives Dangerous to Traffic?” Motor Age , (3 August 1916): p. 32.
[27] “Tips on Speed Traps No Crime in England,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (24 July 1926).
[28] Ibid.
[29] “'Ware the speed traps,” New York Times (1857-1922), (24 July 1921).
[30] Ibid.
[31] Motor Age. 13 May 1920, 22-23.
[32] "Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): p. 142.
[33] Ibid., 142.
[34]“78 Bills Aimed to Regulate Automobile in California: Measure Introduced in Legislature Cover Wide Range of Restrictions,” Motor Age, (1 March 1923): p. 33
[35] Matthews, Charles H. "Recent Legislation." California Law Review 18, no. 1 (1929): p. 40.
[36] Spearing, James O. “At the Wheel,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (26 August 1928).
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Scott, J. B. “Milwaukee County Police Abolish Speed Traps,” The American City, vol. 27 (1922): p. 112.
[40] Ibid., p. 112.
[41] “Would End Village Speed Traps,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (17 April 1923).
[42] Ibid.
[43] “Will Fight Speed Traps: A. A. A. Will Urge National Abolishing of Fee System Arrests,” New York Times (1923- Current File), (29 November 1925).
[44] "Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): p. 143.
Dr. Heitmann
HST 485
Reactions to the Speed Trap in the 1920’s
Early motorists embraced the freedom and excitement that the automobile could provide, but within this liberty, speeding proved to be one of the most appealing, yet illegal, advancements from the complex technology of the automobile. Finding the need to restrict and regulate the allowed speed of the automobile, the speed trap developed into an undesired hassle for the early motorist and a seemingly annoying part of the law. Speed traps and speed trap legislation was a highly debated form of legal police tactics in the 1920’s which drew support and opposition from drivers alike. A portion of motorists felt the speed trap was used unfairly for generating extra money towards the state or local government while others felt it was a positive addition of methods used in successfully limiting the speeds of drivers. Attacked in newspapers and literature, the speed trap, historically, seemed for many motorists to represent the growth of authority in regards to restrictions on the motorists, a growth which was an unnecessary irritation for the motorist.
To historian David Blanke, it is clear that “From the very beginning, automobilists expressed a love for speed.”[1] For drivers, “Like a narcotic, the thrill of speed was obtained only through greater and greater doses.”[2] Whether the love generated from the automobile to the motorists was found in the promise of the open road or in the excitement of the possibility to explore the previously foreign, the speed a car could provide was one of the main appeals to the automobile. Reckless or controlled, after the advancement and ownership of the automobile became more common, those involved with public safety aimed to restrict and limit automotive speed reached by drivers on the roadways. One of the early attempts to reduce the speed permitted by the governments for drivers was the ‘speed trap’ tactic. To Horace Sutton, “The history of speed traps began almost with the emergence of the automobile.”[3] The basic concept of a speed trap consisted, and still consists today, of a mobile policeman stationing themselves in a hidden or specifically tricky position, hard to be identified by drivers, and wait for motorists to pass going speeds higher than legally regulated on a certain stretched of road. Once a motorist would pass who was going above the appropriate speed, they would then be pulled over, ticketed with a traffic violation, and would either have to appear before court or forced to pay a fine for the violation.
The popular motorist reaction to this implemented tactic of catching speeders, in most cases, was not at all considered positive in the least. Blanke identifies that “The public response to the ‘speed traps’ proved predictable. They saw them as ‘unfair,’ ‘unreasonable,’ and ‘worse than absurd.’”[4] As much as safety reforms called for certain speed limitations an automobile could achieve, drivers were, and remain today, unwilling to reduce the speeds they reach during driving to match the legal regulations and restrictions placed on them. The speed trap became the enemy for the motorist, a sentiment which is reflected still today in American automobile culture. The legality of these early speed traps, focused in the 1920’s, was questioned and, evident within auto literature or automotive related news articles of the time, the traps were regarded as unwanted and unappreciated tools used by local or state government through the police department for corrupt purposes. Legally stated in a writing of a recent decision of California law, “The speed trap is defined as a portion of the highway measured or marked off within the vision of the officers so they may calculate the speed of vehicles by using the elapsed time it takes them to traverse the speed.”[5] Basic arguments against speed traps consider, or a definition which closely resembles it, the definition of what they were attacking.
Examples of early speed traps recount basic, primary attempts of police to try to slow down a noticed speeder by any means possible. In one area of the country, police would disguise themselves as road workers ready to throw a rope across the road in order to stop any car suspected of speeding.[6] In other areas of the country, motor-cycle cops, ready to pursue a speed violator as a mobile force, were the face of speed regulations.
The speed trap became a detested practice of law enforcement and quickly became unpopular. The New York Times wrote that many “Automobilists have raged against ‘speed traps,’ that is to say devices or conspiracies to catch them in the act of exceeding the speed limit on what is frequently perjured testimony.”[7] Viewed as a “conspiracy” and a “device,” popular opinion of the speed trap is negative. Was it the opinion of the motorists that the right to speed being so crucially connected to the right to own and operate an automobile the fact that speed traps were detested or the fact that any limits were generally placed on the motorists upset the motorist? There are reasonable facts and reasoning to support each particular claim as being relevant to the opinions of the motorists.
Drivers saw these traps more as annoyances which needed to be avoided and which were implanted to interrupt their driving experience or daily commute on the road. Any consequences of speeding were not seen as excessively important to early drivers to necessitate speed traps and it became more a point of pride to avoid and reject the authority found in the speed trap. For many motorists, speed traps seemed unfair to drivers who considered themselves safe or responsible, no matter the speed. In one piece of literature, a critique of speed traps is made that “Speed traps are established and, the average motorists, who may be only slightly and unintentionally exceeding the speed limits, is fined and subjected to great inconvenience.”[8] To early motorists, “The speed limits, as set by the state laws, are so low in most instances that they are violated regularly by almost every motorist on the road.”[9] If one driver who committed the act of speeding did not receive a consequence for their speeding based on their avoidance of the speed trap, it could be considered a reasonable argument that other drivers should also not be burdened with a fee or fine based on speed traps. Speeding had become such a large part of the motorist’s appeal to the automobile and the act of driving that regulations controlling it became irritations. It was a commonly held opinion that what needed to be protested was “…’speed traps’ and freak traffic rules which will make life miserable for the motorist.”[10]
Many drivers felt that speeding, in many cases, was not the problem on the road but rather the dangerousness of the driver within the car. In fighting the opposition to speed traps, the American Automobile Association, or the A.A.A. argued that “Other recommendations of the program are that arrests be based on recklessness rather than ‘technical’ speed violations and that evidence obtained by ‘speed traps’ be barred by law.”[11] Obtaining and using evidence gathered by speed traps, explained later in this writing, was a point of great distain but this need would have been eliminated if, argued by those like the A.A.A., police force focused rather on reckless drivers and not safe drivers, even if they were going over the designated speed limit.
Corruption or injustice seemed to motorists to be the driving force behind the heightened importance placed on of the speed trap and why they focused on the average motorist. Another mention of speed traps in the New York Times came in the context of a developing story involving the American Automobile Association and its president, Thomas P. Henry. According to the article, “War has been declared by the American Automobile Association, on roadside courts which mulct motorists out of millions of dollars a year in the form of unjust fines.” [12] It continues to call them “’…intolerable nuisance’ to people who travel on the highways in automobiles”[13] and that these “…speed traps were ‘operated for revenue only.’”[14] For many police, at the state and local levels motorists understood that, “Their salary in many cases is contingent upon the number of arrests they make, and naturally they are going to make as many as they can.”[15] As with arrests, fine and fees which are paid to either the state or local government then directly or indirectly contribute to a specific police force which is a process to the collection of speed fines and the distribution to different government institutions.
The reasons behind the speed trap and those caught speeding became questionable to motorists, and are still questionable today, because of how much those tickets and fines are connected to the income or institution of the police who give them out. Within the 1920’s, examples and arguments surfaced which showed that “’…courts are not only ignorant of the law but many times they violate the State statutes in imposing fines and taking money as they do.’”[16] Witnesses gave instances such as “’…in North Carolina…court and speed trap were converted into a family institution”[17] and that “’The spoils are thus kept in the family…’”[18] Another example of corruption within the legal system regarding speed traps made accusations of “One justice of the Peace in Ohio took in $3,500 in fines on motorists in tow months…” and that “The Justice pocketed $1,600…while only slightly more than $200 found its way into the county treasury.”[19] Others identified corruption not with only the fines or fees collected but those who collected the fees. In one instance, “Evidence of extortion, blackmail and conspiracy to defraud has been obtained against twenty Police Magistrates and Justices of the Peace and sixteen motorcycle speed officers in outlying towns and townships…”[20] Corruption with early speed traps and speed trap fines contributed to the distrust and dissatisfaction concerning this institution. These cases of corruption contributed to the larger distrust and dissatisfaction found with the police who used this method.
Motorists called for a regulation of these fines and fought for “A resolution advocating a law providing that all funds thus collected must be turned over to the State was referred to a committee which will report…”[21] about the collection and the amount of funds during meetings annually. Small towns and villages were especially identified as being places where corruption occurred. These villages were notorious for changing their speed limits as to catch tourists or unknowing motorists going a speed which they thought was the regulated limit only to find they were speeding according unnoticed changes in these small village limits. Complaints resounded that “Motorists may be affected in one town for not doing what they would be arrested for doing in the next town.”[22]
Another aspect that many Americans embraced within the automotive love affair was the feeling of brotherhood with other motorists on the road. It was a shared experience to drive on the road. As previously stated, since the speed trap would be used as a tactic to force drivers to reduce speed and also to gain income for the police, motorists became accustomed to avoiding them. As well as individually avoiding traps, many drivers promoted and shared information about the whereabouts of stationed speed traps in order to warn and help other drivers avoid them as well. Tourists were a select group of motorists who felt the effects of traps that were different depending on regions, cities, towns, or municipal jurisdictions. It was a shared experience with law and hassle seen in the speed traps. The brotherhood found in driving translated into a brotherhood of comradery against them.
It would be reasonable to assume that many motorists felt, during the 1920’s as well as still today, that drivers are bonded in their opposition to the law. Motorists felt the need to work together to avoid speed traps and to avoid the penalties which come with being pulled over. Warnings would circulate about the location of possible speed traps and alternate routes to avoid them. This communal sharing of information did not remain in the 1920’s, though, and today, it is common for divers to see another motorist motion or flash their bright lights at another to warn of an upcoming police officer. In the 1920’s, automotive associations and organizations provided information about speed traps and published information which would take some of the authority from officers who operated these speed traps and place it back into the hands of the motorist. If a speed trap was not a secret entity, there was less chance for police to catch drivers speeding and ignorant of an officer awaiting them. Even today, motorists tend to speed in areas where they know cops are less likely to patrol and slow down on roads or through intersections where there is a notorious police presence. Every community has notorious stents of roads where police are more likely to patrol and more known for pulling drivers over.
One popular source of information which might post information on how to avoid or identify areas with speed trap would be in widely read automotive magazines of the time. In general, early motorist magazines would give advice to readers on car related topics such as repairs, new models, and legislation or political topics which might affect a motorist. Within these topics, there was the possibility of warnings for speed traps. One such magazine was Motor, and their 1923 publication openly warned against speed traps. Found in a section entitled “Along the Road with the Editor,” motorists are told that they should “Watch for the speed traps while touring.”[23] The section goes on to tell the reader that “Motor clubs try to post signs-but you probably pay little or no attention to them.”[24] Warning tourists of the possibility of speed traps and acknowledging the practice by motor clubs of their attempts to identify probable locations shows that drivers were not alone in their distaste for speed traps. It is followed with sympathy to those who felt the consequences of a speed trap by expression that “There is no remedy after one of the yearly pests of the motoring crop pinches you.”[25]
In response to the reporting and identifying of speed traps, authorities found they were largely helpless to stop these happenings. Common knowledge, it is not a crime to gossip about the location of something or the position of a car, though research would most likely reveal cases of this accusation occurring. In the development of a speed trap, it was important to have a secretive aspect of the trap as to catch speed violators without giving them the possibility of slowing down or changing speed to then be within limited speeds. It was socially accepted that “Most motorists, whether they be on transcontinental trips of not, break the state highway laws practically every time they go out in a motor car.”[26] This occurred because, in early years of automotive developments, speed limits changed from place to place and were usually not obviously marked for the driver. An example from England shows that other governments were having similar, but not identical, experiences with regulating aspects of drivers and people sharing information about the locations of speed traps. Used as an example for those in the States obviously from its publishing in the New York Times, one particular English incident in a news story shows that “It is no offense to warn a person who is about the break the law…”[27] as shown by the fact that a magistrate had “…held in dismissing an Automobile Association scout who was charged with warning motorists of the existence of a speed trap.”[28] Motorists used this as reasoning or a comparative international example for similar American cases.
Other sources of literature for motorists could be more specific than the above example warning about the location of traps. Organizations such as the Automobile Club of America would give information to the newspapers, for example information published in the New York Times, warning of exact locations of speed traps. For example, they report of “…a speed trap in operation north of Hohokus, between that town and Allendale.”[29] That excerpt continues to tell readers that “They make a practice of stationing themselves at sharp turns to observe the rate at which motorists take the curves.”[30] Another example of the incredibly specific detailed information published about a speed trap was provided by the Cincinnati Auto Club is in their report of things they accomplished in the year. They were proud to share with the magazine and readers that they accomplished “…breaking up speed traps at Xenia and North College Hill, Ohio…”[31] among their other activities. Breaking up or identifying a speed trap was seen as heroic work and work which would benefit all motorists alike and not a specific section.
Legally speaking, many motorists became frustrated with accusations and the legal or monetary repercussions they experienced because of being pulled over by police in a speed trap. The efforts and protests of these motorists against speed traps, though, did begin to influence legislation, seen even within the 1920’s. Through actions of organizations like A.A.A. and individuals who brought their cases and personal complaints to courts, the validity of the speed trap as a solid source of evidence was began to change and change also affected the authority of the speed trap lessened. There were discrepancies between those opinions which supported the use of speed trap evidence as valid testimony for finding a speeder guilty and those who advocated speed trap evidence not being used in a court room setting. When cases were presented before courts, in early instances, speed trap evidence was used in convicting a certain motorist of a speeding crime and therefore burdening them with the financial consequences. As time progressed, motorists began to backlash against officers who operated speed traps as not having concrete measuring tools which could be used in a court of law. This was a time prior to the radar gun used for detection which was developed in the 1950’s. In the eyes of motorists who were adverse to the method, there were some positive steps taken in curbing the use in regards to a tactic and as reputable evidence in a court of law.
In early court documents within the state of California, speed traps were already being dismissed as proper evidence which could be used in accusing a driver. Items such as the “Speed Trap Law,” found in the California legislation Motor Vehicle Act of 1923, also called the California Vehicle Act of 1923, restricted the speed trap’s use. It stated that “…in short that no evidence as to the speed of a vehicle shall be admitted in the trial of a person arrested for speeding when such evidence was connected with or based upon the use of a speed trap…”[32] or that within the courtroom, the “…testimony…from an officer arresting…when a speed trap was used in making of the arrest, or if such officer was not at the time of such arrest in uniform in plain sight on the highway”[33] could not be used in accusing the motorist.
The concept of the hidden speed traps versus identifiable speed traps seemed to be a point prominent to many of motorists who protested the use of the speed trap. In the magazine Motor Age, it is identified that “Speed officers in California are accustomed to establishing ‘traps’ on the highways and hiding out while awaiting the coming of a victim.”[34] The important concept to note is the accusation of the traps being hidden; the lack of sufficient identification was the problem. As stated before, legislation in California dismissed the testimony of an officer who was not fully identified or properly uniformed.
An example of legislation based on the clear identification of officers was the California Vehicle Act of 1923. Continuing on, amendments in 1929 further emphasized the importance of officers clearly marking themselves if they would have creditability translatable in the courtroom. In these amendments, officers “’…shall be dressed in a full distinctive uniform,’ and that no officer shall ‘use an automobile…unless such automobile is painted a distinctive color such as may be determined upon by the division of motor vehicles.’”[35] With these new required regulations for officers, the use of a speed trap and officers who met all requirements for speed enforcement found more creditability within motorist circles. In places such as California, police were making changes and began meeting requirements in order for their testimonies to be considered legitimate.
In Maine, legislation and police were also changing and the change was highlighted. It was made clear to motorists and tourists that “…roads are patrolled by motorcycle officers in uniform.”[36] Also, they explained that the old ways of the speed trap are gone and that “The village constable who used to hide in a speed-trap to catch the car hurtling alone at twenty miles an hour now grumbles…”[37] because of the state’s decision that “Speed-traps have been abolished and any driver who proceeds at a reasonable speed has nothing to fear.”[38] Within Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, motor-cycle police were seen as setting a “…splendid example to other motor-cycle organizations throughout the country by appearing upon the county highways in full police uniform.”[39] Because of this identification, they could be respected as law enforcers and “…not operators of speed traps awaiting the unwary motorist who chance to infringe on the speed laws of their vicinity.”[40]
Through regulation, motorists were slowly coming to the accepted heightened legitimacy within speed trap officers and a growing sense of fairness in the accusations of speeding. Municipal institutions were making it a point of pride for officers in a car or on a motor-cycle to be properly identified. If not considered fair, the speed trap became somewhat more justifiable to motorists in the opinions of the police because the police operated through the regulations placed on them. Through identification, there was a renewed respect for the automotive authority and their methods.
As well as creating regulations for officers in how they present themselves to the public and how well they identify themselves, individual States were making efforts to consolidate speed limits for motorists as well. For example, in New York in 1923, “Regulations of the speed of motor vehicles on State roads running through sparsely settled villages or sections of cities would be denied to local authorities…”[41] and that with making the speed limits on certain roads or in certain areas the same, it would “…eliminate speed traps through which many of the small straggling villages of the State yearly receive large revenue in fines…”[42] collected through these unpopular speed traps. Motorists, then, could not find fault in speed limits and being pulled over in a speed trap if the motorists knew what these uniform speeding limits were. Even organizations like the A.A.A., supported uniform methods of determining speeding. It was on record that “The American Automobile Association announced today that it would support a program of placing all main highways of the country under State road patrols…in order to ‘rid motordom of its worst infestation, the speed trap and the road side court.’”[43]
Presenting the opposition, many legal authorities saw laws and developing regulations like these as a hindrance to the reform, regulation, and restriction of speeders. They argued that acts like these, even if they appealed to the motorist, kept officers from having the power to effectively hold motorists accountable when they catch them speeding. Some who studied the case with the use of the “Speed Trap Law” in California argued that “…the existence of an act which seems somewhat absurd; for the legislation prohibits speeding and at the same time takes the teeth out of the law by prohibiting the means leading to…efficient enforcement of the speed laws.”[44] Officers were faced with the conflict of conforming to regulations and the need to enforce the speed limit. There needed to be a balance struck between the ability to catch and convict a speeder and to find respect from the motorists and a recognized authority within their actions. Legality and validity have always affected police and legal enforcement.
No matter how unpopular the concept of the speed trap was to the motorist, the basic function behind its creation was based on the motorist’s unwillingness to compromise between their love of speed and the regulations upon that speed which were placed and if a speed trap was not the desired way to catch speeders, other regulations would be looked into. Uniform traffic laws were more attractive to motorists then the speed trap and were more likely to be observed or considered fair. Based on the popular arguments, like those from Thomas Henry of the A. A. A., courts were put in the unique position of determining what should be considered legal and lawful concerning speed enforcement. Officers needed to adapt their methods of catching and accusing speeders to be in compliance to the new regulations in order to have their testimonies be considered creditable. Legislation like this is seen as the base for modern day police tactics and restrictions with regards to speed limit enforcement.
Motorists were crucial in bringing complaints against the authorities and courts and were greatly responsible for the modifying of laws and in creating new legislation which would hold motorists accountable for either obeying or disobeying the set legal limit and hold police responsible for more uniform enforcement of the limits. The automotive love affair, which Americans greatly accepted, is directly tied to freedom and liberation tied to the speeds which can be gained in an automobile. Either getting to a destination faster than expected or to feel the open air rush past as the car metaphorically flies down a highway, the speed a motorist can accomplish is a tempting aspect of the automobile. Safety concerns and basic legislation restricting the automobile aimed to limit the speed in the hopes of increasing this safety and decreasing speed related accidents or incidents. Early motorists had to deal with the speed trap as well as other legislation which reduced their perceived freedom of the automobile and the freedom of the open road. When there was any restriction of an aspect in the love affair, motorists react negatively. Whether the speed trap, in the 1920’s, was considered a hassle or considered a necessary but annoying realization, it is part of early attempts to regulate drivers into follow the speed limits. Speed traps were used, favorably or not, in the hopes of regulating speed and drivers and have become a part of the cultural and social aspects of automotive history which still affects the relationship between motorists and the authorities even today.
Works Cited
“78 Bills Aimed to Regulate Automobile in California: Measure Introduced in Legislature Cover Wide Range of Restrictions,” Motor Age, 1 March 1923, 33.
“A New View of Motor Vehicle Taxes,” Automotive Industries, 8 March 1923, 585.
“Accuses 20 Magistrates. Chicago Prosecutor Gets Evidence of Blackmailing Motorists in Outlying Towns,” New York Times (1857-1922), 22 October 1921, 10.
“Along the Road with the Editor,” Motor, 1923, 27.
“Are Transcontinental Record Drives Dangerous to Traffic?” Motor Age,3 August 1916, 32.
“Automobile Reform in Sight,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 22 March 1924.
Blanke, David. Hell on Wheels: The Promise and Peril of America’s Car Culture, 1900-1940. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas, 2007.
“Condemns ‘Speed Traps,’” New York Times (1857-1922), 14 July 1921, 7.
“Increased Accidents Due to Speed Required in Modern Business,” Automotive Industries, 11 October 1923, 752.
Matthews, Charles H. "Recent Legislation." California Law Review 18, no. 1 (1929): 40-43.
Motor Age. 13 May 1920, 22-23.
"Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): 142-143.
Scott, J. B. “Milwaukee County Police Abolish Speed Traps,” The American City, vol. 27 (1922): 112.
Spearing, James O. “At the Wheel,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 26 August 1928.
Sutton, Horace. "Way Back When: Frisky, Risky Birth of the Auto Age." Smithsonian 11, no. 6 (1980): 135-148.
“Tips on Speed Traps No Crime in England,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 24 July 1926.
“Uniform Traffic Law is Coming,” Automotive Industries, 20 December 1923, 1270.
“War Is Declared on Road Courts: American Automobile Associate Says Justice Mulct Motorists of Millions of Dollars,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 20 September 1925.
“'Ware the speed traps,” New York Times (1857-1922), 24 July 1921.
“Will Fight Speed Traps: A. A. A. Will Urge National Abolishing of Fee System Arrests,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 29 November 1925.
“Would End Village Speed Traps,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 17 April 1923.
[1] David Blanke, Hell on Wheels: The Promise and Peril of America’s Car Culture, 1900-1940 (Lawrence, KA: The University of Kansas Press, 2007), p. 71
[2] Ibid., p. 71
[3] Sutton, Horace. "Way Back When: Frisky, Risky Birth of the Auto Age." Smithsonian 11, no. 6 (1980):p. 135.
[4] David Blanke, Hell on Wheels: The Promise and Peril of America’s Car Culture, 1900-1940 (Lawrence, KA: The University of Kansas Press, 2007), p. 189
[5] "Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): p. 142.
[6] Sutton, Horace. "Way Back When: Frisky, Risky Birth of the Auto Age." Smithsonian 11, no. 6 (1980): p. 135.
[7] “Automobile Reform in Sight,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 22 March 1924.
[8] “Are Transcontinental Record Drives Dangerous to Traffic?” Motor Age , (3 August 1916): p. 32.
[9] Ibid., p. 32.
[10] “A New View of Motor Vehicle Taxes,” Automotive Industries, (8 March 1923): p. 585.
[11] “Will Fight Speed Traps: A. A. A. Will Urge National Abolishing of Fee System Arrests,” New York Times (1923- Current File), (29 November 1925).
[12]“War Is Declared on Road Courts: American Automobile Associate Says Justice Mulct Motorists of Millions of Dollars,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (20 September 1925): p. 15.
[13] Ibid., p.15.
[14] Ibid., p.15.
[15] Scott, J. B. “Milwaukee County Police Abolish Speed Traps,” The American City, vol. 27 (1922): p. 112.
[16] War Is Declared on Road Courts: American Automobile Associate Says Justice Mulct Motorists of Millions of Dollars,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (20 September 1925): p. 15.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] “Accuses 20 Magistrates. Chicago Prosecutor Gets Evidence of Blackmailing Motorists in Outlying Towns,” New York Times (1857-1922),( 22 October 1921): p. 10.
[21] “Condemns ‘Speed Traps,’” New York Times (1857-1922), (14 July 1921): p.7.
[22] “Uniform Traffic Law is Coming,” Automotive Industries, (20 December 1923): p. 1270.
[23] “Along the Road with the Editor,” Motor, (1923): p. 27.
[24] Ibid., p. 27.
[25] Ibid., p. 27.
[26] “Are Transcontinental Record Drives Dangerous to Traffic?” Motor Age , (3 August 1916): p. 32.
[27] “Tips on Speed Traps No Crime in England,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (24 July 1926).
[28] Ibid.
[29] “'Ware the speed traps,” New York Times (1857-1922), (24 July 1921).
[30] Ibid.
[31] Motor Age. 13 May 1920, 22-23.
[32] "Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): p. 142.
[33] Ibid., 142.
[34]“78 Bills Aimed to Regulate Automobile in California: Measure Introduced in Legislature Cover Wide Range of Restrictions,” Motor Age, (1 March 1923): p. 33
[35] Matthews, Charles H. "Recent Legislation." California Law Review 18, no. 1 (1929): p. 40.
[36] Spearing, James O. “At the Wheel,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (26 August 1928).
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Scott, J. B. “Milwaukee County Police Abolish Speed Traps,” The American City, vol. 27 (1922): p. 112.
[40] Ibid., p. 112.
[41] “Would End Village Speed Traps,” New York Times (1923-Current File), (17 April 1923).
[42] Ibid.
[43] “Will Fight Speed Traps: A. A. A. Will Urge National Abolishing of Fee System Arrests,” New York Times (1923- Current File), (29 November 1925).
[44] "Recent Decisions." California Law Review 14, no. 2 (1926): p. 143.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar