This weekend our traffic enforcement

[Soup DeVille]

That wasn't a tangent, that was an observation. A tangent would have taken several paragraphs.

Woe, is this evidence that Nameless may have a sense of hunor after all?

[the nameless one]

Woe, is this evidence that Nameless may have a sense of hunor after all?

I warn people I have no sense of humor, but the wife and kids have insisted for years that I actually have one, so I'll let you decide who is right.

[sparkplug]

Law enforcement protect people from lawless speeders. You know people that Darwin's theories haven't killed off yet.

[TurboDan]

Out of everything in this thread, I like the part about not giving tickets for anything other than speeding because it's harder to prove in court best.  The excuse being "well, they often KNOW they were speeding, they don't know they were changing lanes improperly."

Isn't that MORE of a reason to give someone a ticket, or at least pull them over?  Writing someone a ticket for speeding doesn't change their behavior, since they already knew they were speeding and really didn't care in the first place.  Writing someone for acting like an idiot on the road might make them think before they tailgate, merge poorly or fail to signal the next time.

[sparkplug]

Out of everything in this thread, I like the part about not giving tickets for anything other than speeding because it's harder to prove in court best.  The excuse being "well, they often KNOW they were speeding, they don't know they were changing lanes improperly."

Isn't that MORE of a reason to give someone a ticket, or at least pull them over?  Writing someone a ticket for speeding doesn't change their behavior, since they already knew they were speeding and really didn't care in the first place.  Writing someone for acting like an idiot on the road might make them think before they tailgate, merge poorly or fail to signal the next time.

Speeding isn't the only offense. But driving impaired, speeding, not paying attention, talking on the cell phone are all things people do that can hurt other people. Speed, Drunk driving, cell phone jabber all affect a person's ability to respond in an emergency especially if done at a reckless level. It may calm them down for a little while by getting a ticket. Failing to signal ought to be ticketed but my dad would have already received about 100 tickets for that today. You are right but I only using speeding as an example. We just need law enforcement period to protect the less experienced. We can't all be great drivers but we should strive to do our best.

[Champ]

Speeding isn't the only offense. But driving impaired, speeding, not paying attention, talking on the cell phone are all things people do that can hurt other people. Speed, Drunk driving, cell phone jabber all affect a person's ability to respond in an emergency especially if done at a reckless level. It may calm them down for a little while by getting a ticket. Failing to signal ought to be ticketed but my dad would have already received about 100 tickets for that today. You are right but I only using speeding as an example. We just need law enforcement period to protect the less experienced. We can't all be great drivers but we should strive to do our best.

Which is why, in one of the first posts in this thread, I asked how many tickets they cited for any of the other offenses.

Which is still not answered.

[the nameless one]

Out of everything in this thread, I like the part about not giving tickets for anything other than speeding because it's harder to prove in court best.  The excuse being "well, they often KNOW they were speeding, they don't know they were changing lanes improperly."

Isn't that MORE of a reason to give someone a ticket, or at least pull them over?  Writing someone a ticket for speeding doesn't change their behavior, since they already knew they were speeding and really didn't care in the first place.  Writing someone for acting like an idiot on the road might make them think before they tailgate, merge poorly or fail to signal the next time.

I stand by my earlier comments. Such tickets will result in a much larger per centage of tickets going to trial because people will believe that they were doing nothing wrong and were cited unfairly. Stop  people who rolled through a stop sign for instance, and 99% of them will insist they stopped, in spite of you sitting there and seeing that they barely paused in their forward momentum. Absent being able to film everything around you, I'm not sure how those tickets would devolve into a "he said/they said" at every trial with nothing to show as to the actual violation.

Pulling them over with no intent to ticket but simply to lecture them wont work either. Verbal warnings are always an option...but to pull over intending to lecture? Not gonna work in the long haul as a standard procedure.

[dazzleman]

I stand by my earlier comments. Such tickets will result in a much larger per centage of tickets going to trial because people will believe that they were doing nothing wrong and were cited unfairly. Stop  people who rolled through a stop sign for instance, and 99% of them will insist they stopped, in spite of you sitting there and seeing that they barely paused in their forward momentum. Absent being able to film everything around you, I'm not sure how those tickets would devolve into a "he said/they said" at every trial with nothing to show as to the actual violation.

Pulling them over with no intent to ticket but simply to lecture them wont work either. Verbal warnings are always an option...but to pull over intending to lecture? Not gonna work in the long haul as a standard procedure.

A prosecutor in my area had this to say about traffic tickets:  "The process is the punishment."  Just putting them through the whole trouble of having to fight the ticket is probably worse than paying a fine for a lot of people.

[James Young]

Such tickets will result in a much larger per centage of tickets going to trial because people will believe that they were doing nothing wrong and were cited unfairly.

That?s absurd.

You seem to want to only cite people who you believe won?t fight the citation.  Why do we even have courts if not for the hope that truth prevails.

Pulling them over with no intent to ticket but simply to lecture them wont work either.

It makes one wonder why you stop them in the first place if you only want to stop who will not fight it.  Perhaps it is the money involved after all.

Even more egregious is the belief that stopping drivers who won?t fight the citation will magically lead to improvements in fatality or injury rates.

[JY dismounts his soapbox shaking his head at the absurdity. . .]

[the nameless one]

You seem to want to only cite people who you believe wont fight the citation.  Why do we even have courts if not for the hope that truth prevails.

It makes one wonder why you stop them in the first place if you only want to stop who will not fight it.  Perhaps it is the money involved after all.

The truth is on the ticket. What you were seen doing is what you were cited for. But hey, if you want a trial, go for it. The courts in short order will be clogged for what will be a $50 ticket. The money is NOT what its about, James.

We're busy enough dealing with traffic issues people DO complain about, let alone stuff you guys mentioned that should be enforced like "unsafe merging from an on-ramp". Can't recall the last time anyone wrote a letter or made a call about that one. How exactly are you going to define that one anyway, other than the people behind you on the ramp were gritting their teeth and thought they drive better than you. If someone thinks they need to slow down while merging to get onto the road safely, thats their call if they think they need to do that to be safe. Better that than having to respond to the scene for a 2 car accident with injuries. The people behind them on the ramp would cerftainly be slowed if there was an accident ahead of them. What was the other one you guys mentioned....Failure to signal a lane change...well, what were the circumstances? Did the lane change result in another car having to react defensively, swerve to avoid the car that was changing lanes, etc? Then that becomes unsafe lane change, which is much more  than a simple failure to signal a lane change. Once again, its about circumstances. If its someone thats threading their way in and out of traffic while repeatedly not signalling, cutting other drivers off in their lanes changes, etc, thats one thing and sure, that guy should be stopped.  The reality is that people who drive like that wont drive that way if they know theres a patrol car behind them. I see more stuff in the 15 minutes going home in my own car than I see in for hours while working. But hey, you guys want to clog the courts with tickets for failure to signal a lane change.

[James Young]

the nameless one writes:

The truth is on the ticket. What you were seen doing is what you were cited for.

Only an allegation is on the ticket.  That allegation may be true or it may be false.  Usually, regardless of veracity, it has no relevance to correcting poor driving behavior.

But hey, if you want a trial, go for it. The courts in short order will be clogged for what will be a $50 ticket. The money is NOT what its about, James.

And that?s the idea.  If citizens clog up the court calendars fighting traffic citations, the whole system would collapse and legislators would be forced to address it.  By fighting every citation, citizens could assure that citations would cost much more money than they generate.

Finally, you need to take a new look at the real world.  Traffic enforcement is done for money first and foremost.  Even the most cursory examination of the economics would reveal that to you if you would just open your mind.  Peripheral to the economics is the fact that some of the jurisdictions tell us that they?re doing it for the money and just this past spring, three villages in Ok were on the verge of bankruptcy until the OK legislature made a mistake and allowed them to once again start citing on federal highways.

We're busy enough dealing with traffic issues people DO complain about, let alone stuff you guys mentioned that should be enforced like "unsafe merging from an on-ramp". Can't recall the last time anyone wrote a letter or made a call about that one.

You just don?t get it.  It doesn?t matter what a bunch of old cranks complain about.  It is about what works to improve traffic safety.  Enforcement needs to concentrate on those things that ? through scientific measurement ? we know can affect key safety measures such as fatality, injury and crash rates.  Your job is to keep traffic moving as efficiently and as safely as possible given the instant conditions.  If you don?t know what that is then you need to determine it.  If you can?t do that then you need to find another profession because you?re not doing this one right.

How exactly are you going to define that one anyway. . .

Hey, in the real world it happens every day.  Just last night I saw a Chippie stop a car who had merged from Rancho California Road onto northbound I-15, causing people on the 15 to slow down in an accordion effect.  If they can do, you can learn.

If someone thinks they need to slow down while merging to get onto the road safely, thats their call if they think they need to do that to be safe.

No, that is not their call and proper merging is one thing that every driver must learn and demonstrate in order to receive a license.  Do you truly believe that merging at too slow a speed is less dangerous than the guy running 10 mph over the limit?  Get serious.  If your judgment is so poor or your skill set so lacking that you believe that, there is no doubt that you?re a danger to society.

Better that than having to respond to the scene for a 2 car accident with injuries. The people behind them on the ramp would cerftainly be slowed if there was an accident ahead of them.

Since our goal is to reduce those crashes, do you not believe that the improper merging caused that crash?   Sweet Chocolate Jesus!  Use your brain to actually think about this stuff sometime. 

If its someone thats threading their way in and out of traffic while repeatedly not signalling, cutting other drivers off in their lanes changes, etc, thats one thing and sure, that guy should be stopped.

Perhaps there is hope. . .  However, if you would concentrate on removing impeders, it would eliminate  much of that threading in and out.

[rohan]

  Traffic enforcement is done for money first and foremost. 

Proof?

[rohan]

Here let me save us all from your blah blah blah BS and just answer that one for you.

No,

[James Young]

Proof?

What more proof do you need than their own words?  Or perhaps the $100+ billion dollars that goes from private pockets into the coffers of various jurisdictions across the nation every year? Perhaps that is not real money? Or perhaps you missed the part about at least three villages who were saved from bankruptcy by being able to cite on federal highways?  Proof is there; you just need to accept it.

You just keep on believing whatever you want.  Reason, facts and critical analysis seem to elude you.

The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about and hide behind jargon and institutional obfuscation.  Just keep on posting because every time you do, you expose a little more of just how limited your really are.

[rohan]

What more proof do you need than their own words?  Or perhaps the $100+ billion dollars that goes from private pockets into the coffers of various jurisdictions across the nation every year? Perhaps that is not real money? Or perhaps you missed the part about at least three villages who were saved from bankruptcy by being able to cite on federal highways?  Proof is there; you just need to accept it.

You just keep on believing whatever you want.  Reason, facts and critical analysis seem to elude you.

The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about and hide behind jargon and institutional obfuscation.  Just keep on posting because every time you do, you expose a little more of just how limited your really are.

I thought you said there were thousands of villages using tickets to fund themselves?  Now it's 3? 
Just because I was in a hurry and wrote AI instead of accident investigations doesnt' make my post meaningless.  And now your resortintg to personal attacks?  Weak- very weak.  You know what they say about someone who has to resort to personal attacks to make themselves look smart- 


And ple=ase point out anywher e in this or anyother forum anywhere where I claimed to anything more than a simple working guy who is lucky to have the job I have?

[James Young]

rohan writes:

I thought you said there were thousands of villages using tickets to fund themselves?  Now it's 3?

That isn?t what I wrote and you know it.  For you to contend otherwise is dishonesty.  There are thousands of jurisdictions who use traffic fines as a substantial ? sometimes the only source ? source of revenue.  The three villages were examples of the dependence upon those fines as their source of income.  In simpler terms, it is all about the money.
 

Just because I was in a hurry and wrote AI instead of accident investigations doesnt' make my post meaningless.  And now your  resortintg to personal attacks?  Weak- very weak.  You know what they say about someone who has to resort to personal attacks to make themselves look smart-

No, I don?t know and really don?t care.

If what you write is unsupported rehashing of institutional verbiage, then it is meaningless. 

And ple=ase point out anywher e in this or anyother forum anywhere where I claimed to anything more than a simple working guy who is lucky to have the job I have?

Law enforcement is an honorable profession but now you seem to imply that you?re not up to the job.  What you write is vapid and absent cogent thought.  You keep demanding ?proof? but when presented with it cannot synthesize it with your extant body of knowledge.  As a professional, you?re supposed to have an elevated body of knowledge and cognitive abilities but your posts continue to belie their presence.

Personal attack?  Hardly.  Anybody who comes into a public forum, especially one professing a specialized body of knowledge, has to be ready to have it questioned.  You need to present your case and let the readers decide for themselves what the truth is.

Note also that criticism directed at knowledge, assertions, allegations of fact, behavior, policy or logic are not personal attacks. 

[rohan]

rohan writes:

That isn?t what I wrote and you know it.  For you to contend otherwise is dishonesty.  There are thousands of jurisdictions who use traffic fines as a substantial ? sometimes the only source ? source of revenue.  The three villages were examples of the dependence upon those fines as their source of income.  In simpler terms, it is all about the money.
 

Hmmm- so you didn't write this below?

Assuming that your experience is real, it is certainly anomalous in the universe of traffic enforcement that the rest of us see.  We see villages of 250 people with 12 officers on force, writing citations for five-over because they want the money ant that is because there is limited or no economic opportunity there.  And the police force and the administration of the village are one and the same.

Typical of such scams is the saga of New Rome, OH, which is closer to you than to me.  Google ?New Rome Ohio? or just go to www.newromesucks.com then click on ?Archives.?  New Rome has been decommissioned because of their enforcement abuses.

No, they are very common, which is why I said ?typical.?   I can name about three dozen of them right in Oklahoma, six of which had had their authorization to cite on state and federal highways revoked by the state.  There are thousands of these places and more and more big cities are using traffic enforcement for revenue purposes. 

[Catman]

And every time I come into this forum, I become more and more certain that all you cops are one and the same. 

The more I read your ridiculous and juvenile comments the more it confirms you're a spoiled brat who's sacrificed very little in your life.  Your whole attitude is one of selfish arrogance.  I have explained these things to you numerous times, putting an officer's perspective in context and still you have this unreasonable, warped view of how policing works in 99% of communities.  Cops are not required to kiss your ass, they should be professional.  They are not required to utilize a crystal ball to ascertain if you're dangerous or not.  It's not about treating people as criminals, it's treating them as a potential threat.  Of course, your arrogance tells you that an officer should never question your intentions. Ridiculous.  You're really quite immature.

[James Young]

Hmmm- so you didn't write this below?

Yes, I wrote those posts.  What is your point? 

[TheIntrepid]

The more I read your ridiculous and juvenile comments the more it confirms you're a spoiled brat who's sacrificed very little in your life.  Your whole attitude is one of selfish arrogance.  I have explained these things to you numerous times, putting an officer's perspective in context and still you have this unreasonable, warped view of how policing works in 99% of communities.  Cops are not required to kiss your ass, they should be professional.  They are not required to utilize a crystal ball to ascertain if you're dangerous or not.  It's not about treating people as criminals, it's treating them as a potential threat.  Of course, your arrogance tells you that an officer should never question your intentions. Ridiculous.  You're really quite immature.

You sir, have earned my respect. The next round of beers can be billed to my card.

[hounddog]

Yes, I wrote those posts.  What is your point? 

I believe he made his point. 

[hounddog]

The more I read your ridiculous and juvenile comments the more it confirms you're a spoiled brat who's sacrificed very little in your life.  Your whole attitude is one of selfish arrogance.  I have explained these things to you numerous times, putting an officer's perspective in context and still you have this unreasonable, warped view of how policing works in 99% of communities.  Cops are not required to kiss your ass, they should be professional.  They are not required to utilize a crystal ball to ascertain if you're dangerous or not.  It's not about treating people as criminals, it's treating them as a potential threat.  Of course, your arrogance tells you that an officer should never question your intentions. Ridiculous.  You're really quite immature.

If we were playing football, and Greg were an offensive lineman, we would call that a "pancake."  Nicely done, Greg. 

[James Young]

I believe he made his point. 

No, he didn't; he's just confused.

[Raghavan]

Damn, Cat just gave Raza the smackdown!

[the nameless one]

Only an allegation is on the ticket.  That allegation may be true or it may be false. 

Maybe in your world. Not here.

And that’s the idea.  If citizens clog up the court calendars fighting traffic citations, the whole system would collapse and legislators would be forced to address it.

By doing what? You think they'd actually increase speed limits for anything but interstates? Keep dreaming.

By fighting every citation, citizens could assure that citations would cost much more money than they generate.

They already do.

Finally, you need to take a new look at the real world.  Traffic enforcement is done for money first and foremost. 

No , its not, outside of the few places you keep citing endlessly.

You just don’t get it.  It doesn’t matter what a bunch of old cranks complain about. 

The complainers are a cross section of society, every economic group, every walk of life.In some cases it is an entire neighborhood speaking out that they want something done. I don't know where you get the idea that it must be some biddy in a rocking chair with nothing better to do.

No, that is not their call and proper merging is one thing that every driver must learn and demonstrate in order to receive a license.  Do you truly believe that merging at too slow a speed is less dangerous than the guy running 10 mph over the limit?  Get serious.  If your judgment is so poor or your skill set so lacking that you believe that, there is no doubt that you’re a danger to society.

It absolutely IS their call. If they believe it is unsafe to merge, then they certainly can and should wait until it is safe to do so. If people behind them have to wait a bit, too bad.

Since our goal is to reduce those crashes, do you not believe that the improper merging caused that crash?   Sweet Chocolate Jesus!  Use your brain to actually think about this stuff sometime.

Improper merging in that they didn't wait until it was safe to enter the flow of traffic, certainly. Improper because they slowed people down? No. 

[Raza]

The more I read your ridiculous and juvenile comments the more it confirms you're a spoiled brat who's sacrificed very little in your life.  Your whole attitude is one of selfish arrogance.  I have explained these things to you numerous times, putting an officer's perspective in context and still you have this unreasonable, warped view of how policing works in 99% of communities.  Cops are not required to kiss your ass, they should be professional.  They are not required to utilize a crystal ball to ascertain if you're dangerous or not.  It's not about treating people as criminals, it's treating them as a potential threat.  Of course, your arrogance tells you that an officer should never question your intentions. Ridiculous.  You're really quite immature.

When did I say I want them to never question my intentions?  I just said not to be surprised when I question theirs.


And for a second, Greg, I thought you were different.   

[Raza]

If we were playing football, and Greg were an offensive lineman, we would call that a "pancake."  Nicely done, Greg. 

I love the cop circle jerk. 

He hasn't called me anything I haven't admitted to being before.  I made an assumption about my attitude that is incorrect. 

I never asked for the cops to hold me on a pedestal.  I just said I refuse to hold the cops on one either. 

[James Young]

James Young wrote

?Only an allegation is on the ticket.  That allegation may be true or it may be false. ?

TNO responds:

Maybe in your world. Not here.

Wow, either you are hopelessly na?ve or your mindset is so out of kilter with reality that you live in a parallel universe.  Not even the most aggressive cop would contend that the citation is anything but an allegation made about particular behavior by the name on the citation. Proof is not reached by the citation but by the court.

This is so basic but what is truly frightening is that you don?t know it.

JY writes:  ?No, that is not their call and proper merging is one thing that every driver must learn and demonstrate in order to receive a license.  Do you truly believe that merging at too slow a speed is less dangerous than the guy running 10 mph over the limit?  Get serious.  If your judgment is so poor or your skill set so lacking that you believe that, there is no doubt that you?re a danger to society.?

It absolutely IS their call. If they believe it is unsafe to merge, then they certainly can and should wait until it is safe to do so. If people behind them have to wait a bit, too bad.

You wrote:  ? . . . let alone stuff you guys mentioned that should be enforced like "unsafe merging from an on-ramp". Can't recall the last time anyone wrote a letter or made a call about that one. How exactly are you going to define that one anyway. . .??

Again, your naivet? is stunning and dangerous.  All of the states have defined proper merging, usually centering around entering the main roadway safely at the speed of traffic, interfering neither with the traffic on the roadway, which has already established the right-of-way, or with those following.  Drivers do not get to decide for themselves what is their particular ?safe speed? since that is established by extant traffic.  If traffic is moving at around 70 mph, then the merger has no choice but to merge at 70 mph OR find a suitable space without stopping on the ramp, which is illegal. 

Your ignorance of the law, driving practices and reason is stunning.

Improper merging in that they didn't wait until it was safe to enter the flow of traffic, certainly. Improper because they slowed people down? No.

Unbelievable.   If they slowed down traffic on the roadway with the right-of-way, that is illegal and, worse, unsafe.  I cannot believe that you don?t know this stuff.

Addendum:

I find it sad and frustrating that any public official or employee is so ignorant of the science, the reasoning and the policy implications within his purview.  This is compounded by the stubbornness of the faithful to even perceive, much less understand, the technological improvements and, even more importantly, the why of the discipline. As Mark Twain said so well, "It ain't what we don't know that hurts us.  It is waht we know for sure that just ain't so."

Ignorance is dangerous.  Purposeful naivet? is deadly. 

[GoCougs]

The more I read your ridiculous and juvenile comments the more it confirms you're a spoiled brat who's sacrificed very little in your life.  Your whole attitude is one of selfish arrogance.  I have explained these things to you numerous times, putting an officer's perspective in context and still you have this unreasonable, warped view of how policing works in 99% of communities.  Cops are not required to kiss your ass, they should be professional.  They are not required to utilize a crystal ball to ascertain if you're dangerous or not.  It's not about treating people as criminals, it's treating them as a potential threat.  Of course, your arrogance tells you that an officer should never question your intentions. Ridiculous.  You're really quite immature.

Some of that may be true or not, I don't know. IMO, at least some component of it is an act. Suffice it to say Raza loves playing Devil's advocate, and otherwise being on the outside.

[the nameless one]

Wow, either you are hopelessly na?ve or your mindset is so out of kilter with reality that you live in a parallel universe.  Not even the most aggressive cop would contend that the citation is anything but an allegation made about particular behavior by the name on the citation. Proof is not reached by the citation but by the court.

My point is that *I* know the ticket to be true and accurate. It would not have been written otherwise. Go ahead and argue its validity, *I* know it to be the truth.

JY writes:  “No, that is not their call and proper merging is one thing that every driver must learn and demonstrate in order to receive a license.  Do you truly believe that merging at too slow a speed is less dangerous than the guy running 10 mph over the limit?  Get serious.  If your judgment is so poor or your skill set so lacking that you believe that, there is no doubt that you’re a danger to society.”

If the driver gets to the end of the ramp and theres no place to merge into, they absolutely have to stop or slow until an opening comes along. They cannot merge into a place there is no place to merge into without causing an accident. THAT is the scenario I'm thinking of. You apparently would insist that the driver continue to merge unsafely even though doing so would cause an accident. All because you as a driver behind the one at the top of the ramp might feel a little inconvenienced because you had to wait a few seconds. It is your view that is the menace to traffic safety.