UPDATE: 2-0 on tickets

[GoCougs]

What do police unions have to do with traffic enforcement? My union has absolutely zero say about how or when we do traffic enforcement. And the concept of "over-funded LE departments" in this day and age is a huge joke...we're in the longest stretch of LE budget cuts and layoffs in this country in recent memory. Many departments have been lucky to just keep minimum staffing levels in the last 5-7 years. You're talking out of your ass on this, Cougs.

Unions = giving inordinate power (or at least much more than would otherwise be possible) to police departments (i.e., blunts the feedback process).

Plenty of police departments the country over have anything from aerial equipment (i.e., planes) and the latest "DSP" speed measurement device equipment.

[bing_oh]

It's a stretch, but the police unions have gotten a number of state legislatures to mandate a police officer and marked car do details at road jobs. Granted, it's under the guise of "safety" but the unions love it because they get a piece of the action from the OT payments (at least in NJ).

The only department in my area that I know of that does safety details at road construction is the OSHP...and they do get a pretty penny working those details. Calling those details "traffic enforcement" in any way is a joke, though. They sit at the beginning of the construction site with their lights on and watch TV for the entire shift (and, yes, I'm jealous...they make very good money doing it). To actually make a stop is extremely rare.

EDIT...

I should probably mention a couple things. First, those troopers at construction sites are being paid for by the construction companies, not the taxpayers. And, second, those same troopers with their cushy OT details have had mandatory unpaid furlough days for at least the last 5 years because of budget cuts. Just interesting points.

[bing_oh]

Unions = giving inordinate power (or at least much more than would otherwise be possible) to police departments (i.e., blunts the feedback process).

Please. As a union member and union rep, I wish the unions were as powerful as you believed. They're not. Hell, my union is in the middle of a fight over a dispatcher's job who got laid off for no reason. If we were so powerful, why are we having to fight?

Anyway, you still havn't made any logical connection between police unions and traffic enforcement...and I'm confident you won't, since there is none. Unions do not dictate policy and procedure on things like this.

Plenty of police departments the country over have anything from aerial equipment (i.e., planes) and the latest "DSP" speed measurement device equipment.

Once upon a time, yes. Some really large departments still do. But many of those programs are being or have been cut for budgetary reasons. You're making statement without having the knowledge to back it up. Ask any cop today if his department has faced budget cuts and, chances are, he'll sat "yes." You'll probably get the same response if you ask him if his department has laid off officers or contemplated such a move. Those who say "no" will probably at least tell you of long-term hiring freezes. LE departments are in dire straits today.

[GoCougs]

Please. As a union member and union rep, I wish the unions were as powerful as you believed. They're not. Hell, my union is in the middle of a fight over a dispatcher's job who got laid off for no reason. If we were so powerful, why are we having to fight?

Anyway, you still havn't made any logical connection between police unions and traffic enforcement...and I'm confident you won't, since there is none. Unions do not dictate policy and procedure on things like this.

Once upon a time, yes. Some really large departments still do. But many of those programs are being or have been cut for budgetary reasons. You're making statement without having the knowledge to back it up. Ask any cop today if his department has faced budget cuts and, chances are, he'll sat "yes." You'll probably get the same response if you ask him if his department has laid off officers or contemplated such a move. Those who say "no" will probably at least tell you of long-term hiring freezes. LE departments are in dire straits today.

The point being, police unions are too powerful (as all unions are under the guise of pro-union thug law) which compels and reinforces delinked behavior; oer emphasis and irrational traffic enforcement is a byproduct.

Your comment about fighting a layoff is a classic example - I don't want to devolve this into union bashing, but welcome to the real world the rest of us work in - we can be fired at any time for any reason (or no reason at all).

Budget cuts doesn't mean the department isn't still over funded.

[hounddog]

What do police unions have to do with traffic enforcement? My union has absolutely zero say about how or when we do traffic enforcement. And the concept of "over-funded LE departments" in this day and age is a huge joke...we're in the longest stretch of LE budget cuts and layoffs in this country in recent memory. Many departments have been lucky to just keep minimum staffing levels in the last 5-7 years. You're talking out of your ass on this, Cougs.

I laughed for about ten minutes over the "over-funded police departments" baloney and another ten for the "over powerful police unions."

When it comes to actual LE knowledge on anything, as Rohan so poignantly stated, Cougs is out of his depth. 

It's a stretch, but the police unions have gotten a number of state legislatures to mandate a police officer and marked car do details at road jobs. Granted, it's under the guise of "safety" but the unions love it because they get a piece of the action from the OT payments (at least in NJ).

I have a hard time even imagining this. 

Here they get monthly dues and nothing else.  In fact, in Michigan police are statutorily prevented from belonging to a "union" and instead are represented by "associations." 

When Jenni "Two-penny" Granholm was governor she tried to force all LE into the UAW but was unable since they were statutorily prohibited.  She did, however, manage to get all state employees shoved forcefully into the UAW.   It was all quite disgusting with how the UAW was able to buy more members.

[TurboDan]

Hound, everyone (including those who live here) have a hard time imagining the nonsense behind many of our state's policies. We give 60 percent of all our education aid to 31 school districts out of 590, and the average property tax bill is more than $8,000 because of a lack of state school aid to municipalities.

As for the union connection in road details, here's how it works: State passes law that says there has to be an off-duty officer at essentially every road construction site after the unions lobby the majority Democrats into it. So let's say your town is doing some road construction. Under the law, the construction company doing the job is obligated to hire off-duty sworn officers through the local union shop (which would be the PBA, in most cases in NJ). The PBA then pays the town a fee for the use of a marked car "rental" for the day, as well as a token fee to "use" the off-duty officer. The officer is paid the OT rate under the collective bargaining agreement for the town, but from the construction company, and it all flows through the PBA and they get a piece of the action.

In the end, of course, the taxpayers pay for the OT. Even though the construction company doing the job is paying for the officers, the taxpayers are paying the construction company. It's really just another hidden union tax.

[hounddog]

The level of legalized bribing and corruption on every level of government is just sickening.

[SVT666]

When it comes to actual LE knowledge on anything, as Rohan so poignantly stated, Cougs is out of his depth. 

Lately, Cougs has been tripping up a lot.  He's proving himself to be out of his depth on many issues.

[Rich]

We have an overfunded department here in Mt Home.  Seems like one of every 10 cars is a cruiser.  Rediculous.

[bing_oh]

We have an overfunded department here in Mt Home.  Seems like one of every 10 cars is a cruiser.  Rediculous.

You do realize that your observations and perceptions don't necessarily support your conclusion, right? There could be numerous reasons for you preceiving that there are an inordinate number of curisers in an area. There could be changes in patrol times and patterns for a specific purpose. There could be multiple agencies patrolling an area for a particular reason. You could simply be noticing LE presence more because of a personal perception reason. The list goes on and on.

Let me give you an example. We have had (I believe) 8 fatalities in less than 3 weeks in my county from vehicle crashes. All but one has been on a single major state route. Because of the high numbner of fatalities, the Sheriff's Offie and the OSHP have increased patrols. The state route is also one of the major roadways through my city, so you frequently see cruisers on it on normal patrol or enroute to calls. None of those three departments have any kind of increses in funding (all three departments are, in actuality, dealing with funding limitations and shortages)...it's all a matter of targeting patrol frequency and routes of units already on the road to address a specific issue. So, while people driving on that state route might perceive a higher number of cruisers and believe exactly what you've stated, the perception does not reflect reality.

[TurboDan]

This was just an issue in my town. The verdict was that it's much, much, much better to have more patrol cars that aren't used during every single shift than a few cars that are. Capital costs of vehicle replacements are WAY lower if you limit the use of patrol cars than if you beat all of them into the ground in short order.

In my town, cars are used for two of three shifts per day.

[dazzleman]

We have an overfunded department here in Mt Home.  Seems like one of every 10 cars is a cruiser.  Rediculous.

I don't mind seeing a lot of cruisers.  I'd love to see cruisers come down my block more often.

[bing_oh]

This was just an issue in my town. The verdict was that it's much, much, much better to have more patrol cars that aren't used during every single shift than a few cars that are. Capital costs of vehicle replacements are WAY lower if you limit the use of patrol cars than if you beat all of them into the ground in short order.

In my town, cars are used for two of three shifts per day.

That was pretty much accepted practice for many departments until the recent financial cutbacks in many municipalities. Now, administrators looking to quickly cut budgets have slashed the purchase of new cruisers while the older ones are staying on the road until they flat-out die or become extreme safety hazards. The problem becomes that these older, higher-mileage cruisers have rapidly escalating maintenance costs, many times for high-ticket repairs that only extend the life a relatively short time. In reality, it would be more cost effective to buy new cruisers than to dump the money into repairing older ones that have only a limited time left on the road...but the quick cost savings of slasing replacement cruisers is too tempting for administrators and their political masters. Of course, when a cruiser does die or becomes a safety hazard, it's not replaced, meaning that the remainder of the fleet has to be on the road that much more to take up the slack...it becomes a spiraling maintenance/repair scenario that costs more in the long run.

[GoCougs]

I don't mind seeing a lot of cruisers.  I'd love to see cruisers come down my block more often.

If they are after or out for criminals, to an extent, sure some presence is good.

If they are sitting on he side of the road manning a speed trap with the latest "DSP" speed measurement devices, not so much (= over funded).

[CALL_911]

I don't mind seeing a lot of cruisers.  I'd love to see cruisers come down my block more often.

They really do need start cracking down on all them hoodrats in Fairfield.

[Rich]

You do realize that your observations and perceptions don't necessarily support your conclusion, right? There could be numerous reasons for you preceiving that there are an inordinate number of curisers in an area. There could be changes in patrol times and patterns for a specific purpose. There could be multiple agencies patrolling an area for a particular reason. You could simply be noticing LE presence more because of a personal perception reason. The list goes on and on.

Let me give you an example. We have had (I believe) 8 fatalities in less than 3 weeks in my county from vehicle crashes. All but one has been on a single major state route. Because of the high numbner of fatalities, the Sheriff's Offie and the OSHP have increased patrols. The state route is also one of the major roadways through my city, so you frequently see cruisers on it on normal patrol or enroute to calls. None of those three departments have any kind of increses in funding (all three departments are, in actuality, dealing with funding limitations and shortages)...it's all a matter of targeting patrol frequency and routes of units already on the road to address a specific issue. So, while people driving on that state route might perceive a higher number of cruisers and believe exactly what you've stated, the perception does not reflect reality.

I've lived in 3 other areas, and I see way more cruisers rolling around town here than anywhere else.  Easily twice as many per car as any other place I've been, night or day, and for the whole 2 years I've been here.  The town gets a lot of money from the Air Force presence, but it's still a small town. 

There was one time I passed 3 cruisers on my way to Walmart at about 10pm, and this is a town of 11,000. 

[Rupert]

Jeez, do all the Boisians go there to buy speed or something? I figured they went to Meridian for drugs...

[AutobahnSHO]

They're looking for hot airforce chicks.

Otherwise known as "army mattresses".      ba dum dum!     

[Rich]

Lol.  Should really go for Marine women.  They are the most attractive.  AF girls are just sluts.

[rohan]

If they are after or out for criminals, to an extent, sure some presence is good.

If they are sitting on he side of the road manning a speed trap with the latest "DSP" speed measurement devices, not so much (= over funded).

DSP = digital speed processing = small computer = all radar guns purchased since about 1994 != some great master electronic gizmo of remarkable scarcity

[Rich]

You do realize that your observations and perceptions don't necessarily support your conclusion, right? There could be numerous reasons for you preceiving that there are an inordinate number of curisers in an area. There could be changes in patrol times and patterns for a specific purpose. There could be multiple agencies patrolling an area for a particular reason. You could simply be noticing LE presence more because of a personal perception reason. The list goes on and on.

Let me give you an example. We have had (I believe) 8 fatalities in less than 3 weeks in my county from vehicle crashes. All but one has been on a single major state route. Because of the high numbner of fatalities, the Sheriff's Offie and the OSHP have increased patrols. The state route is also one of the major roadways through my city, so you frequently see cruisers on it on normal patrol or enroute to calls. None of those three departments have any kind of increses in funding (all three departments are, in actuality, dealing with funding limitations and shortages)...it's all a matter of targeting patrol frequency and routes of units already on the road to address a specific issue. So, while people driving on that state route might perceive a higher number of cruisers and believe exactly what you've stated, the perception does not reflect reality.

Mt Home:Full-time law enforcement employees in 2010, including police officers: 36 (28 officers).

Officers per 1,000 residents in Mt Home:
2.28
Idaho average:
1.78


Fayetteville, NC: Full-time law enforcement employees in 2010, including police officers: 518 (366 officers).

Officers per 1,000 residents in Fayetteville, NC:
1.76
North Carolina average:
2.40

Rome, NY:Full-time law enforcement employees in 2010, including police officers: 80 (76 officers).

Officers per 1,000 residents in Rome, NY:
2.31
New York average:
3.23

Looks like it's not far from average.  dunno what to say... this is the only place I regularly see at least 2 cruisers everytime I got out, and I've lived in places with more population....