A New (Hillarious) Low

[TurboDan]

Was browsing a semi-private NYPD board that a friend of mine who's an NYC cop recommended I take a peak at every so often.  One of the officers posting asked why a marked unit from the Highway Division had been sitting in the shoulder of the Grand Central Parkway for what seemed like months. 

This portion post was priceless:

If the unmanned RMP has been put there to reduce speed etc I suggest it be moved to a different spot every year or so. Said RMP has been there so long that yesterday I spotted a homeless guy relieving himself on the side of the vehicle, in fact I think he lives inside the RMP

A second post, by a fellow officer, was equally hillarious, if not simply pathetic:

LOL.

About 2 weeks ago I saw a minor rear ender right there. The driver of the car that got hit ran over to the RMP and tapped on the window, then walked away shaking his head.

[S204STi]

lmao!

[Vinsanity]

haha that sounds like something you'd see on Reno 911

[TheIntrepid]

That's actually pretty funny.

[Raghavan]

Wow...

[sandertheshark]

haha that sounds like something you'd see on Reno 911

That's the first thing I thought too. 

[Soup DeVille]

That's actually pretty funny.

That's actually done in Pleasant Ridge...

[Tave]

Rand CO, between Walden and the Continental Divide on 125. There's an old sheriff's Bronco parked next to the post office/bar/entire town. They've even got a straw man with a uniform sitting in the driver's seat.

[bing_oh]

Alot of places actually are doing this. There are places that sell manniquin torsos holding a radar/laser gun to sit in the empty cruisers. There's even one place that's using plywood cutouts that look like a cruiser as you approach it from behind.

[dazzleman]

My town does this.  They put a mannequin called "safety man" in the police car, so people think it's an officer giving out tickets and slow down.

The only difference is they don't leave the car there for months.  It's usually there for a few hours at a time.

[James Young]

When law enforcement treats itself like a joke . . .

[bing_oh]

When law enforcement treats itself like a joke . . .

It's called "deterrence."

[inner monologue]Why am I responding to this? I said I wouldn't respond to James Young. I know it won't do any good.[/inner monologue]

[J86]

One of these days they're actually gonna change up the dummies with a real guy around my home, and I'll be so screwed

[sparkplug]

Wait until they have robot police.

[bing_oh]

Wait until they have robot police.

We have robot police. Havn't you seen automated red light and speed cameras?

[etypejohn]

It's called "deterrence."

[inner monologue]Why am I responding to this? I said I wouldn't respond to James Young. I know it won't do any good.[/inner monologue]

Deterrence eh?  So let's see.  People seeing the dummy cop car and cop slow down in that area, because they see what they believe is a speed trap.  And that is lauded because it deters speeders,even though its a fair sssumption that people will go right back to speeding within the next 2-3 miles.

Now compare that to a situation in which real live cops do set up a speed trap on the road but about a mile before that speed trap someone is standing by the side of the road with a sign that says "slow down, speed trap ahead".  That person is performing the same function as the fake car and cop; causing people to obey the law.  The only difference is in this case the cops ability to generate revenue is reduced.  And of course the person with the sign can be arrested.

As has been said time and time again, most speeding enforcement is about the money, not safety.

[bing_oh]

Deterrence eh?  So let's see.  People seeing the dummy cop car and cop slow down in that area, because they see what they believe is a speed trap.  And that is lauded because it deters speeders,even though its a fair sssumption that people will go right back to speeding within the next 2-3 miles.

Now compare that to a situation in which real live cops do set up a speed trap on the road but about a mile before that speed trap someone is standing by the side of the road with a sign that says "slow down, speed trap ahead".  That person is performing the same function as the fake car and cop; causing people to obey the law.  The only difference is in this case the cops ability to generate revenue is reduced.  And of course the person with the sign can be arrested.

As has been said time and time again, most speeding enforcement is about the money, not safety.

These programs are frequently used by departments without the financial and/or manpower resources to spend on regular traffic enforcement. It's a cheap, imperfect alternative to traffic enforcement, usually set up in an area of either high complaints or high speed-related crashes. In these cases, because enforcement isn't a possibility, deterrence is attempted. As you've clearly stated, deterrence only goes so far in changing driver habits, so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.

Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.

And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal!

[Tave]

Some of you guys are actually upset about the dummy-cruiser?

It's more funny than anything, and once you identify it it's a non-issue.

[Raza]

Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.

And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal!

[bing_oh]

Ah, nothing like a little intellectual debate, huh Raza?

Yea, you caught me. It's all bullshit. I was required to post it, though, as I'm the CarSpin Disinformation Officer of the Month (you'll note that I changed my profile to reflect my position, just so there's no more confusion). Plus, I always go out of my way to intentionally lie to people in other states on internet message boards, even though the information I gave doesn't directly effect me in any way.

[Raza]

Ah, nothing like a little intellectual debate, huh Raza?

Yea, you caught me. It's all bullshit. I was required to post it, though, as I'm the CarSpin Disinformation Officer of the Month (you'll note that I changed my profile to reflect my position, just so there's no more confusion). Plus, I always go out of my way to intentionally lie to people in other states on internet message boards, even though the information I gave doesn't directly effect me in any way.

How is a dummy officer any different than a guy stopping the coppers from getting their revenue?  Except that the coppers don't get their revenue...

[bing_oh]

I'll just go ahead and re-post the explanation, Raza. It's just easier that way.

These programs are frequently used by departments without the financial and/or manpower resources to spend on regular traffic enforcement. It's a cheap, imperfect alternative to traffic enforcement, usually set up in an area of either high complaints or high speed-related crashes. In these cases, because enforcement isn't a possibility, deterrence is attempted. As you've clearly stated, deterrence only goes so far in changing driver habits, so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.

Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.

And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal!

[Raza]

I'll just go ahead and re-post the explanation, Raza. It's just easier that way.

I can go on all day.

[bing_oh]

I'm sure you can, Raza, but I won't. Have a pleasant afternoon.

[etypejohn]

These programs are frequently used by departments without the financial and/or manpower resources to spend on regular traffic enforcement. It's a cheap, imperfect alternative to traffic enforcement, usually set up in an area of either high complaints or high speed-related crashes. In these cases, because enforcement isn't a possibility, deterrence is attempted. As you've clearly stated, deterrence only goes so far in changing driver habits, so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.
OK

Your guy with the "speed trap ahead" sign isn't deterring crime, he's obstructing the officer running traffic enforcement in the commission of his duties. If that guy would like to stand in that same spot day after day, regardless of whether or not there was an officer running traffic ahead, that would be just fine...he would then be a deterrent and an officer would be freed up to run traffic at another problem spot. However, the guy isn't doing that...his intent is to prevent the officer from enforcing the law. It's all about intent.
I would argue the intent isn't to stop the officer from enforcing the law.  The intent of the guy with the sign is to prevent people from getting a ticket.  The officer can still enforce the law as he sees fit.  the only difference is there are less people to catch because less are speeding.  The net result is the same in either case.  People slowing down in respond to a perceived threat.

And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement. I can't speak for other jurisdictions but, in my city, the court takes almost all of the (paltry) fine money in traffic cases. The remainder is split up between the state (that's the lion's share of the remainder) and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. Oh, and the jurisdiction's part (all whopping $2) goes into the city's general fund, not the police department's coffers. Oy vey, whatta deal!

Your department may not be typical.

Go read:  http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-048.pdf

In summary it says there is evidence that tickets are used as a revenue generating source and it contains quoted statments from municipal officials to that effect.

I'm not questioning your sincerity in what you believe to be true but in this instance I believe I will put more credence in the findings of a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loius than I will the statements of one officer of the law.  

Plus, consider this.  Your department is going to exist whether its officers write traffic tickets or not.  So even though you might not make vast sums of money from traffic tickets I would submit that writing those tickets are still vital in that the revenue gained still helps to offset operating costs that would be in place regardless of whether you write those tickets are not.

Also, you might find http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21980 a bit amusing

[etypejohn]

I'll just go ahead and re-post the explanation, Raza. It's just easier that way.

I generally stay within the speed limits and seldom preform illegal driving maneuvers.  I point that out so you know I have no ax to grind and that I generally respect the law and policemen.  However, I thing the police community does itself a disservice and would get a bit more respect if they just admitted that traffic enforcement is about safety and revenue.  But then again, I've always tried to employ the honest approach.

[bing_oh]

Your department may not be typical.

Go read:  http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-048.pdf

In summary it says there is evidence that tickets are used as a revenue generating source and it contains quoted statments from municipal officials to that effect.

I'm not questioning your sincerity in what you believe to be true but in this instance I believe I will put more credence in the findings of a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loius than I will the statements of one officer of the law.  

Plus, consider this.  Your department is going to exist whether its officers write traffic tickets or not.  So even though you might not make vast sums of money from traffic tickets I would submit that writing those tickets are still vital in that the revenue gained still helps to offset operating costs that would be in place regardless of whether you write those tickets are not.

Also, you might find http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21980 a bit amusing

Ok, I'll be honest...I stopped reading the Fed's study when I hit the advanced nuclear physics calculation that related to dark matter in the universe about mid-way through that they used to support their claims.

I will give you a little insight and comment on the first half of the study, though.

First, I've worked for three municipal police departments in my 9 years as a full-time officer. I've only worked for one that had anything resembling a traffic citation quota, and that was directly connected to statistical crash data throughout the city (ie, we were required to write a certain number of citations, but the cites had to be in high-crash areas). The other two had no kind of quota system of any kind. I also know alot of police officers. We "talk shop" as much as anybody else, and I can't think of a single other officer I know who has any kind of quota system at his/her department. So, while I'm just one officer, I have a good bit of experience, that experience is in multiple locales, and I also have information from other officers in adjacent locales.

As for the article, I noticed that there were alot of references to "city officicals," "mayors," and various other politicians. I won't say that politicians don't see traffic citations as a form of revenue...politicians are greedy little creatures who would, for the most part, steal the fillings from a dead man's teeth if they could make a buck off of them. So, do politicians see dollar signs in traffic tickets? You're damn right they do! But, they see dollar signs in pretty much everything!

The question for debate wasn't if politicians wanted to make money off of traffic tickets, it was if law enforcement used traffic enforcement as a form of revenue. I can say, from my personal experience and from what other officers I know have told me, that law enforcement has no interest in using traffic enforcement as a revenue-generator. Speaking from a patrolman standpoint (ie, I'm not the brass, I'm just the worker bee), there's absolutely no reason for me to even care about the revenue generated (if any) from the citations I write. I don't get a bonus. I don't get a better car or better equipment. Whether I write 1 ticket ot 1000, I still have to come in and do my job every day. I suppose that there are oddball departments that reward their officers for high citations numbers, but they're so rare as to nearly be things of urban legend!

So, in the end, no matter what the underlying motives of the politicians or the police brass might be, the individual officer out there who decides whether or not you're getting a cite could really give a rat's ass less about revenue. And, since we're the ones with the tickets and the ink, we make the call. So, I'm being as honest as I can be from my personal experiences and position. If you'd like a different viewpoint, I suppose you could scrounge up a politician or chief of police, but I'm neither of those.

[Soup DeVille]

I won't say that politicians don't see traffic citations as a form of revenue...politicians are greedy little creatures who would, for the most part, steal the fillings from a dead man's teeth if they could make a buck off of them. So, do politicians see dollar signs in traffic tickets? You're damn right they do! But, they see dollar signs in pretty much everything!

The question for debate wasn't if politicians wanted to make money off of traffic tickets, it was if law enforcement used traffic enforcement as a form of revenue.

The question then is perhaps: How much influence can politicians- and by that I mean politicians at all levels who may also exert their influence through grant moneys- have on the operating poicies of police departments?

My outsider's perspective is: A whole bunch.

[TurboDan]

The question then is perhaps: How much influence can politicians- and by that I mean politicians at all levels who may also exert their influence through grant moneys- have on the operating poicies of police departments?

My outsider's perspective is: A whole bunch.

Grant money comes from the state.  Normally, what will happen (at least in NJ) is that the "municipal administrator," basically a non-elected person whose full time job it is to run the town, will apply for a grant.  The police department will receive the money, but must use it for a specific purpose.  Normally, this means DUI enforcement.  The money from the state will pay for an extra officer on duty to pull people over for various infractions to see if they are sober. 

This is a state issue, not a local police issue.  Basically, the state pays for a few officers to get some OT, and the towns go along with it.  The state probably breaks even, or loses money, depending on how many citations or arrests are made, which normally aren't that many. 

The only way to make "quick money" off the grant programs is to do a roadside registration check.  That, admittedly in NJ, is to raise money. In NJ, it's been done on bridges to barrier islands on busy weekends.  Basically, an officer will stand at the point where the bridge empties onto the island (in other words, nowhere to hide for the drivers) and look at everyone's registration decal.  If yours is expired, the officer will direct you into a parking lot and write a ticket.  The towns are paid by the state to do this, and the state and local municipalities have admitted it is for revenue generation.  Personally, I don't count this as "traffic enforcement," however.

[Soup DeVille]

Grant money comes from the state.

Yes, but whose idea was it to make the grant in the first place, and whose idea was it to apply for and conform to the requirements of said grant?