This weekend our guys who were given OT to work traffic cars had a banner weekend~ 300+ tickets including 71 driving on suspended/revoked license- 32 OWI's- and 248 speeding of 15 or more over the posted limits but reduced to 10 over or less. And our traffic cars aren't done there's one more shift of 8 guys coming in. That sounds like a lot but if you think aobut it we have 8 shifts wher ewe had 4-8 guys only working traffic.
If we use the number of 4 per shift that only works out to about 9 1/2 per officer per shift- and we are right on target with most fo the othe r departments in our area. Who says wer're raking in the money from tickets?
Are those statistics for tickets statewide? I find it hard to believe that a local department is handing out that many tickets.
To be honest, the number of officers working on a statewide traffic enforcement initiative sounds low to me. :huh:
Quote from: rohan on September 03, 2007, 10:52:30 AM
This weekend our guys who were given OT to work traffic cars had a banner weekend~ 300+ tickets including 71 driving on suspended/revoked license- 32 OWI's- and 248 speeding of 15 or more over the posted limits but reduced to 10 over or less. And our traffic cars aren't done there's one more shift of 8 guys coming in. That sounds like a lot but if you think aobut it we have 8 shifts wher ewe had 4-8 guys only working traffic.
If we use the number of 4 per shift that only works out to about 9 1/2 per officer per shift- and we are right on target with most fo the othe r departments in our area. Who says wer're raking in the money from tickets?
Meet your quota yet? Or are you waiting and praying for that last shift to complete it? :evildude:
I'm just joking, good job :ohyeah: on cracking down on speeders who weren't slick/smart enough to be able to slip away from all you Officer Bob's. Good luck catching me though, 105mph on a 45 just a couple days ago. If I got caught in your area going that fast would you have lowered it to a "10 over or less"? :lol:
Seriously though, just messing around with you. I'm sure you guys managed to stop a lot accidents from happening, and more than likely stopped a good amount of people from speeding, even if for a couple months.
How many for impropper lane use, failure to merge or inattentive driving?
Quote from: rohan on September 03, 2007, 10:52:30 AM
This weekend our guys who were given OT to work traffic cars had a banner weekend~ 300+ tickets including 71 driving on suspended/revoked license- 32 OWI's- and 248 speeding of 15 or more over the posted limits but reduced to 10 over or less.? And our traffic cars aren't done there's one more shift of 8 guys coming in.? That sounds like a lot but if you think aobut it we have 8 shifts wher ewe had 4-8 guys only working traffic.?
If we use the number of 4 per shift that only works out to about 9 1/2 per officer per shift- and we are right on target with most fo the othe r departments in our area.? Who says wer're raking in the money from tickets?
So I would guess the driving on a suspended or revoked license and probably of the OWI's originally resulted from a speeding stop. Correct?
Revenue? I don't know the average fine where you are, In houston, its probably about $150, so 300 tickets are worth $45,000. Not a bad haul.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 03, 2007, 11:31:20 AM
Are those statistics for tickets statewide?? I find it hard to believe that a local department is handing out that many tickets.
To be honest, the number of officers working on a statewide traffic enforcement initiative sounds low to me.? :huh:
Dazzle, re-read what he wrote.? It spells it out pretty well.? That many citations is not at all uncommon when you put out that many traffic cars.? Admittedly, that is a high number of traffic enforcement cars for one department.? Randy told me that they were trying something new, they were using a proactive approach to drunk driving and speed related accidents.? He said that they put out press releases for two weeks prior about their greatly increased patrols.? ?He told me they received alot of positive input from their citizens about it.? He said they would pair up with another car and work a specific area for about an hour and then move on.? Very good PR for them in the neighborhoods and communities they worked.
Quote from: etypeJohn on September 04, 2007, 08:47:07 AM
So I would guess the driving on a suspended or revoked license and probably of the OWI's originally resulted from a speeding stop.? Correct?
Revenue?? I don't know the average fine where you are, In houston, its probably about $150, so 300 tickets are worth $45,000.? Not a bad haul.
In Michigan local police departments only receive 1/3 of the fines, but nothing from the remaining court costs and administrative fees that make up the vast bulk of the citation.? ?Sheriff departments, where Randy works, receive 1/2 if they write the ticket. Those speeding tickets fines are only about $30, so his department only receives about $15 per ticket.?
Now on the other hand, open intoxicants, MIP, OWI, and driving while license suspended (DWLS) are misdemeanors so they are much higher.? Perhaps in the area of $75-200 depending on the severity of what they did.?
In the end, it cost his department FAR more to put that many deputies on the road than they will ever recoup from revenues generated by tickets. Especially when you consider Sunday and Monday are usually union contracted holiday days, and are generally paid at 3 or 3 1/2 times normal pay.
Quote from: rohan on September 03, 2007, 10:52:30 AM
This weekend our guys who were given OT to work traffic cars had a banner weekend~ 300+ tickets including 71 driving on suspended/revoked license- 32 OWI's- and 248 speeding of 15 or more over the posted limits but reduced to 10 over or less.? And our traffic cars aren't done there's one more shift of 8 guys coming in.? That sounds like a lot but if you think aobut it we have 8 shifts wher ewe had 4-8 guys only working traffic.?
If we use the number of 4 per shift that only works out to about 9 1/2 per officer per shift- and we are right on target with most fo the othe r departments in our area.? Who says wer're raking in the money from tickets?
You did, y'all got overtime just to write tickets, didn't you?
Thats hardly "raking in the money".
Quote from: the nameless one on September 04, 2007, 03:50:32 PM
Thats hardly "raking in the money".
"3 or 3 1/2 times normal pay" doesn't sound too shabby to me.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 04, 2007, 03:54:07 PM
"3 or 3 1/2 times normal pay" doesn't sound too shabby to me.
They don't pay that around here. Til a few years ago, holidays were just another straight pay day.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 04, 2007, 04:52:12 PM
They don't pay that around here. Til a few years ago, holidays were just another straight pay day.
So, what do they pay? Holiday pay plus time and a half over forty? Or 2 1/2 times instead of 3 times your normal pay.
Somebody better call his union rep!
Now its time and a half for holidays and over 40. Still hardly "raking it in". Union reps do no good if the employer wont negotiate at contract time.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 04, 2007, 06:59:02 PM
Now its time and? a half for holidays and over 40. Still hardly "raking it in". Union reps do no good if the employer wont negotiate at contract time.
Since the claim was about Rohan's department, and not yours, what you get paid doesn't relate to how much he's raking in at all, does it?
Lazerous writes:
QuoteI'm sure you guys managed to stop a lot accidents from happening. . .
I doubt that. It certainly flies in the face of their own and independent data that have never been able to establish a correlation between the level or focus of enforcement and the Big Three key safety measures.
Quote. . .and more than likely stopped a good amount of people from speeding, even if for a couple months.
Another term for that is impeding the flow of traffic. Thanks, guys, that?s a real public service. Thankfully, most traffic stops result in a slow down for a few minutes.
Why is it so difficult for everybody to understand the concept that we don?t want to slow everybody down but to keep them moving? This erroneous belief that slower equals safer has as much validity as the Easter Bunny, yet it continues to plague us.
Champ writes:
QuoteHow many for impropper lane use, failure to merge or inattentive driving?
This question is still open.
hounddog writes:
QuoteIn the end, it cost his department FAR more to put that many deputies on the road than they will ever recoup from revenues generated by tickets.
C?mon, do the math. They collected about $45,000 for
somebody.
They had 8 shifts of 8 men for 8 hours per shift; that?s 512 manhours. At $40,000 per year, that?s $19.23 per hour and police pay in these very fora for that area has been alleged to be in the $30,000 range. 512 hours times $19.23 is $9,846; even at double-time, that?s only $19,692 plus benefits, which don?t increase directly with rate of pay.
But wait! The kicker is that his department probably didn?t even have to pay for the OT because the feds offer huge amounts for campaigns exactly such as this.
Rohan, was there a federal subsidy? What agency are we talking about here?
However, the most egregious aspect of this is the institutional behavior that precipitates actions that foster growth of the institution all the while ignoring evidence that the original mission has been abandoned. A high-visibility campaign is for PR purposes to elevate public opinion of the institution rather than the completion of that mission.
Go ahead and keep fooling yourselves; make yourself think that you really did something worthwhile. You didn?t, of course, but then the price is being paid by somebody else.
Rohan is an officer with the Michigan State Police- which is one of the most professional departments in the nation, and in all my years of living here I have never seen a State trooper engage in some of the more flagrant revenue-grabbing schemes that I have seen other departments in the area do.
Quote from: James Young on September 04, 2007, 07:50:19 PM
Go ahead and keep fooling yourselves; make yourself think that you really did something worthwhile. You didn?t, of course, but then the price is being paid by somebody else.
:ohyeah: Traffic cops... :rolleyes:
?The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) is coordinating the enforcement effort by providing federal traffic safety funds for overtime enforcement to nearly 230 agencies to boost patrols in selected areas and by funding paid advertising to ensure widespread awarenessof the crackdown. Officers from more than 500 agencies across the state have agreed to participate in the campaign.?
Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning
Hmmm. Seems it's not costing the agency much of anything.
widespread awareness means that they just want the public to think that they're actually doing something.
They ought to pay in 1? donuts per hour as well.
Quote from: Champ on September 04, 2007, 07:46:22 AM
How many for impropper lane use, failure to merge or inattentive driving?
These would be the tickets I'd write if I was an officer I think.? Morally I'd have a hard time stopping somebody for speeding. (well more writing a ticket for it. Speeding is a useful tool to have a legitamate excuse for pulling someone over to check BAC or some other assumption. And if everything is fine otherwise let them go.)
However watching somebody text on their cellphone is a scary thing.? You get a whole new view of the road from a motorcycle - I think everyone should have to ride for a bit once in their lives.? Makes you a better driver for sure.
If I were a traffic cop, I'd challenge people to races, pull them over, and write them fake tickets with smiley faces on them.
Quote from: Champ on September 05, 2007, 10:17:23 AM
These would be the tickets I'd write if I was an officer I think. Morally I'd have a hard time stopping somebody for speeding. (well more writing a ticket for it. Speeding is a useful tool to have a legitamate excuse for pulling someone over to check BAC or some other assumption. And if everything is fine otherwise let them go.)
However watching somebody text on their cellphone is a scary thing. You get a whole new view of the road from a motorcycle - I think everyone should have to ride for a bit once in their lives. Makes you a better driver for sure.
I saw someone having a whole text conversation while driving. I kindly waved him off the road, and made him swallow his cell phone, then I beat him to death with his glow in the dark shift knob.
Quote from: Champ on September 05, 2007, 10:17:23 AM
These would be the tickets I'd write if I was an officer I think.? Morally I'd have a hard time stopping somebody for speeding.? (well more writing a ticket for it.? Speeding is a useful tool to have a legitamate excuse for pulling someone over to check BAC or some other assumption.? And if everything is fine otherwise let them go.)
However watching somebody text on their cellphone is a scary thing.? You get a whole new view of the road from a motorcycle - I think everyone should have to ride for a bit once in their lives.? Makes you a better driver for sure.
Good luck proving those, it'll be one persons word against the other without video and everyone will be taking their tickets to court.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 05:30:09 PM
Good luck proving those, it'll be one persons word against the other without video and everyone will be taking their tickets to court.
Oh bullshit. When it comes down to an officer's word against a defendant's I wonder who'll be believed?
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 05:30:09 PM
Good luck proving those, it'll be one persons word against the other without video and everyone will be taking their tickets to court.
I think any officer would have plenty of proof for someone texting on their cellphone. All they have to do is get a printout from the phone company and match the text message with the time of the traffic stop. Or they could just grab the phone and look at the history. That is very easy to enforce, and it could be the next big revenue generator, taking the place of unnecessary speeding tickets! I wouldn't mind that a bit. :praise:
As for just driving like an idiot in general (impropper lane use, failure to merge or inattentive driving...), that is just as easy to prove as speeding, if not more so. In the end, both rely on the officer's word. Who cares if it offends people and they take it to court? Officer's word wins. The end.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 05, 2007, 05:45:27 PM
Oh bullshit. When it comes down to an officer's word against a defendant's I wonder who'll be believed?
The point is, most people KNOW they were speeding. Regardless of whatever ewxcuse they give at the side of the road, they KNOW they were caught. So they mail in the ticket. No trial. Charge them with "improper lane use" or "improper merging" and everyones going to think they were shafted and they'll fight it. Way too much hassle to go to trial because some guy disputes how he merged with the flow of traffic. Given how some roads are built, its going to be highly subjective to boot. For something that ISN'T a big concern for most people. How many complaints do you think agencies get that some driver didn't merge quickly enough to suit someone behind them?
Except for those dozen cranks that sit around Tompkins County and complain about evildoers that drive through their neighborhood at 1.75 mph over the posted limit, people just don't bother to call about other drivers actions.? However, impeding and improper merging are two of the most irksome actions out there and enforcement does zippy about it.? ?:nono:
Get real James: no one complains about drivers 1.75 MPH over the limit. twenty over? sure, and thats a legitimate complaint. Nope, no one around here complains about "improper merging".
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 06:32:33 PM
Get real James: no one complains about drivers 1.75 MPH over the limit. twenty over? sure, and thats a legitimate complaint. Nope, no one around here complains about "improper merging".
Do you really want everybody to call the police everytime they see "improper merging"? Not one single department in the entire country has enough manpower to respond to so many calls. Even if you did respond to a call about "improper merging", WTF are you going to do about it!?
BTW, I'm complaining right now about that stupid lady on a cellphone who was tailgating me in a Prius while I was already doing 10mph over the limit. I'm complaining about it
right now. What can anyone do about it now? What could I do about it then? Am I'm supposed to call the police from my cellular
while I'm driving? No. :nono: Am I supposed to pull over and call the police every time someone tailgates me or cuts me off? No :nono: I would always be late for everything... in fact, I would probably never get where I was going!
The cell phone thing IS illegal in an increasing number of states and that is enforced on a fairly regular basis. Once again, thats something that people KNOW they were doing. You start writing for some vaguye thing like "improper merging" or even "tailgating" in which no accident took place, and you're going to be seeing a lot more trials because thats a matter of perception.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 06:51:16 PM
The cell phone thing IS illegal in an increasing number of states and that is enforced on a fairly regular basis. Once again, thats something that people KNOW they were doing. You start writing for some vaguye thing like "improper merging" or even "tailgating" in which no accident took place, and you're going to be seeing a lot more trials because thats a matter of perception.
I'm talking about ticketing dangerous drivers, I don't care about the logistics of the courts.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 06:51:16 PM
Once again, thats something that people KNOW they were doing. You start writing for some vaguye thing like "improper merging" or even "tailgating" in which no accident took place, and you're going to be seeing a lot more trials because thats a matter of perception.
Improper merging and tailgating are neither vague nor matters of perception since I suspect that you?ll find that they are more closely correlated to crash causes than ?speeding,? which by its very nature is arbitrary. If those cited actions lead to more trials then that?s a good thing.
Just because enforcement of them is more difficult does not make it less desirable since it would have the effect of teaching drivers what they
don?t know[/b, i.e., certain expectations and the skills to attain them. Citing speeding, on the other hand, teaches drivers only that much traffic enforcement is done to collect money.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 05:56:09 PM
The point is, most people KNOW they were speeding. Regardless of whatever ewxcuse they give at the side of the road, they KNOW they were caught. So they mail in the ticket. No trial. Charge them with "improper lane use" or "improper merging" and everyones going to think they were shafted and they'll fight it.? Way too much hassle to go to trial because some guy disputes how he merged with the flow of traffic. Given how some roads are built, its going to be highly subjective to boot. For something that ISN'T a big concern for most people. How many complaints do you think agencies get that some driver didn't merge quickly enough to suit someone behind them?
Complaints don't injure people or cause accidents, bad driving does. People complain just to complain sometimes, but its not the job of someone charged with increasing the safety of the public to satiate obsessive whininess.
For the rest of your argument: basically what you're saying is is that ignorance of the law is an excuse? What goes to trial or not is not your concern anyways is it? Again: the safety of the driving public is supposedly the reason your out there in the first place isn't it?
Or is it simply to issue the easy, rarely contested, revenue enhancing ticket?
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 06:51:16 PM
The cell phone thing IS illegal in an increasing number of states and that is enforced on a fairly regular basis. Once again, thats something that people KNOW they were doing. You start writing for some vaguye thing like "improper merging" or even "tailgating" in which no accident took place, and you're going to be seeing a lot more trials because thats a matter of perception.
Again, there is nothing vague about either of those rules: they are clear cut and obvious. The only thing that makes them "vague" is that most people only have a vague idea what those rules are: and it can be argued that that's because its almost never ticketed for.
People complain about speeding because that is the only traffic violation they can really expect police to enforce. Start actually righting tickets for following to close, merging unsafely, and unsafe lane change and people will start to bring up problem areas in town hall type meetings.
This is from somebody who got pulled over for following to close (dumbass in the left lane hit the brakes as soon as he saw a cop (a negative side effect of police on traffic duty almost entirely focusing on speeding), which put him at 45 in a 55, pacing a truck in the right lane)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 05, 2007, 08:26:33 PM
Again, there is nothing vague about either of those rules: they are clear cut and obvious. The only thing that makes them "vague" is that most people only have a vague idea what those rules are: and it can be argued that that's because its almost never ticketed for.
"Tailgating" is a generic term with no real true definition. What constitutes tailgating will vary from one person to the next. Who you think might deserve ticketing may not be who James thinks deserves ticketing. As for trials, I'm simply pointing out that because its so vague, you're going to see more trials because the people ticketed will feel that they are innocent of the charge, bogging the courts down.
Theres the myth of the "revenue-enhacing ticket" brought up again. You guys can't get over the fact that in much of the country, tickets are overall a loss, and certainly don't go to the local municipality or the agency issuing the ticket.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 04, 2007, 03:54:07 PM
"3 or 3 1/2 times normal pay" doesn't sound too shabby to me.
For the record- these guys were on OT on my regular shifts. I didn't get anything other than the 3 times for holiday pay. They got standard OT- AND holiday pay which is about 3 1/2 times pay per contract because they were assigned to the duty not volunteer.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 04, 2007, 07:55:15 PM
Rohan is an officer with the Michigan State Police- which is one of the most professional departments in the nation, and in all my years of living here I have never seen a State trooper engage in some of the more flagrant revenue-grabbing schemes that I have seen other departments in the area do.
No I'm not. I'm with a larger more urban/suburban Sheriff department. But thanks for thinkin I could be one of them- even if they are just blue bellies. :pullover: Our department only received money for 180 hours of added traffic enformcent the rest came out of county coffers. And according to our Chief Deputy (3rd guy in the department) at our meeting this morning it cost us more than $5000 to run that but he felt that the added patrols helped with traffic crashes this weekend- he hasn't gotten that data yet but he thingks it helped.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 05, 2007, 05:30:09 PM
Good luck proving those, it'll be one persons word against the other without video and everyone will be taking their tickets to court.
Can a LEO not sit at the top of an on ramp and clock people that are merging? That's easy to prove - this guy was going 40 by the time he hit traffic, thus impeading it's flow and merging unsafely.
Isn't inattentive driving the #1 cause of accidents? Why not take a stab at that, then worry about the secondary things later.
Quote from: Champ on September 06, 2007, 07:41:45 AM
Isn't inattentive driving the #1 cause of accidents?? Why not take a stab at that, then worry about the secondary things later.
Exactly! What a concept! We go after the important things -- as determined by scientific method -- in the effort to actually have our actions make a difference. Nameless One seems to believe that because drivers have different defintions of "tailgating" or "proper merging," then we should not pursue those. He would rather that we chase after the easy but ultimately counterproductive stuff such as speeding.
Quote from: James Young on September 06, 2007, 09:17:30 AM
Exactly! What a concept! We go after the important things -- as determined by scientific method -- in the effort to actually have our actions make a difference. Nameless One seems to believe that because drivers have different defintions of "tailgating" or "proper merging," then we should not pursue those. He would rather that we chase after the easy but ultimately counterproductive stuff such as speeding.
I have a different definition of "speeding" than all the ridiculous signs posted along the side of the road, therefore I don't think I should be pursed. :praise:
Quote from: Champ on September 06, 2007, 07:41:45 AM
Isn't inattentive driving the #1 cause of accidents??
No.
Quote from: NACar on September 06, 2007, 09:35:09 AM
I have a different definition of "speeding" than all the ridiculous signs posted along the side of the road
And that would be? i would say exceeding the sign by the side of the road is a clearcut definition.
Quote from: rohan on September 06, 2007, 06:42:49 AM
No I'm not.? I'm with a larger more urban/suburban Sheriff department.? But thanks for thinkin I could be one of them- even if they are just blue bellies.? ?:pullover:? Our department only received money for 180 hours of added traffic enformcent? the rest came out of county coffers.? And according to our Chief Deputy (3rd guy in the department) at our meeting this morning it cost us more than $5000 to run that but he felt that the added patrols helped with traffic crashes this weekend- he hasn't gotten that data yet but he thingks it helped.
My mistake.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 02:48:00 PM
And that would be? i would say exceeding the sign by the side of the road is a clearcut definition.
No shit! I can read the signs, but my definition is different. :rolleyes:
Speedlimits never change, but ideal speeds vary constantly with conditions; weather, traffic, type of vehicle, driver's condition, etc. Now shut up, troll.
Quote from: NACar on September 06, 2007, 03:06:48 PM
No shit! I can read the signs, but my definition is different.? :rolleyes:
Speedlimits never change, but ideal speeds vary constantly with conditions; weather, traffic, type of vehicle, driver's condition, etc. Now shut up, troll.
Troll? Hardly. Yes, maximum speed you should be driving at any given time may change, but the conditions you describe require that you REDUCE your speed from what is posted on the sign. Exceeding the number on the sign would be speeding; driving too fast for conditions is just that.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 03:11:36 PM
Troll? Hardly. Yes, maximum speed you should be driving at any given time may change, but the conditions you describe require that you REDUCE your speed from what is posted on the sign. Exceeding the number on the sign would be speeding; driving too fast for conditions is just that.
Ok. I'm going to go ride my bike 120mph down the interstate now. If I die, you are not a troll. If I come back, you are a troll. Let's see what happens...
So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll eh? Go ahead and ride your motorcycle down the road at 120 MPH. Sooner or later your rash behavior will get you killed, ticketed, suspended, revoked, etc. Hopefully no one dioes because of your conduct.
I only went 105mph because I didn't think 120mph was safe today, but you're still a troll.
Like I said, you only think that because I disagree with you. Good luck with the speeding. You'll miss your license when its gone.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 04:17:05 PM
Like I said, you only think that because I disagree with you. Good luck with the speeding. You'll miss your license when its gone.
:rolleyes:
You're a troll because the only thing you do is argue about how perfect our traffic laws and enforcement is.
That makes me a troll? Hardly. Someone needs to be a counterpoint to the "speed til we wreck" crowd here.
What topic shall we discuss? The weather? Sports? This is the driving and the law section of the board, what do you expect to be discussed here if not traffic enforcement?
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 04:17:05 PM
Like I said, you only think that because I disagree with you. Good luck with the speeding. You'll miss your license when its gone.
Maybe he says that because you tend to take whatever reasoning you can to support your position, even if its directly contradictory to not only the facts, but in many cases to your own previous arguments?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 04:24:37 PM
Maybe he says that because you tend to take whatever reasoning you can to support your position, even if its directly contradictory to not only the facts, but in many cases to your own previous arguments?
Facts? Like James' "facts"? take the "fact" that was presented above about distracted driving being the #1 cause of accidents...righhtttt..You guys just don't like hearing that speeding, something you guys love to do, can be hazardous. You hate any enforcement that inhibits your ability to speed to your hearts content.
AFAIK I've never contradicted myself. Feel free to cite an example.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 04:29:00 PM
Facts? Like James' "facts"?? take the "fact" that was presented above about distracted driving being the #1 cause of accidents...righhtttt..You guys just don't like hearing that speeding, something you guys love to do, can be hazardous. You hate any enforcement that inhibits your ability to speed to your hearts content.
AFAIK I've never contradicted myself. Feel free to cite an example.
The fact that tickets can and do increase revenue?
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 04:29:00 PM
Facts? Like James' "facts"?? take the "fact" that was presented above about distracted driving being the #1 cause of accidents...righhtttt..You guys just don't like hearing that speeding, something you guys love to do, can be hazardous. You hate any enforcement that inhibits your ability to speed to your hearts content.?
Actually, much of the body of those ?facts? is yours.? The data collected by NHTSA is not only voluminous and wide-reaching, it comes in large part from police reports so if those ?facts? are wrong, it?s your fault.? Likewise, the official sites of each of the 50 states are populated by data drawn largely from police reports.
NHTSA has not specifically recognized ?distracted driving? as a cause but has recently begun to examine the phenomenon.? Of course, when the reports and the reporting forms omit that as a cause, contributing factor or a ?xxx-related? issue, then it won?t show up.? In simpler terms:? garbage-in, garbage-out.? Submitted for your consideration:? NHTSA has never recognized suicide as a cuase of crashes, yet we know that it does happen; we just don't know how often.
?Speeding? is not that hazardous, certainly overstated by ?official? statistics everywhere but, in fact, unsupported by your own data.? Not only that, but stopping speeding ? that is, slowing down all traffic ? has a very high cost.? The consequences of speed enforcement are a loss of productivity that runs into the trillions and an increase in the distrust of and belligerence toward law enforcement in general.?
You keep trying to mischaracterize drivers, even enthusiasts such as on these fora, as nothing more than thrill-seeking fools bent on self-destruction.? This is not only factually wrong but downright deceptive in its intent.?
Drivers should be able to decide on their own what speed to drive without the constant harassment and faux-concern for our well-being that are the fa?ade of a money-grubbing campaign to shore up failed institutions.
A pox on your house.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 04:31:19 PM
The fact that tickets can and do increase revenue?
Posts like yours ignores the reality that for most agencies, they don't get the money from tickets. The revenue is NOT the motivating factor for most agencies. Of course James can point to a handful of exceptions to that. They aren't the norm.
Quote from: James Young on September 06, 2007, 06:08:23 PM
?Speeding? is not that hazardous, certainly overstated by ?official? statistics everywhere but, in fact, unsupported by your own data.?
If speeding is not hazardous, why is it a factor in so many accidents. And don't point to your books of stats. Go toa few accidents and tell me speed wasn't a factor. Oh yeah, right...youw ere an EMT or some such thing in a former life. We will never agree, James.
QuoteNot only that, but stopping speeding ? that is, slowing down all traffic ? has a very high cost.? The consequences of speed enforcement are a loss of productivity that runs into the trillions and an increase in the distrust of and belligerence toward law enforcement in general.?
So what.....the alternative for many people is never getting there at all because they are dead vs slowing down. Put a dollar value on those peoples lives, James.
QuoteYou keep trying to mischaracterize drivers, even enthusiasts such as on these fora, as nothing more than thrill-seeking fools bent on self-destruction.? This is not only factually wrong but downright deceptive in its intent.?
It certainly comes across that thats how they are.
QuoteDrivers should be able to decide on their own what speed to drive without the constant harassment and faux-concern for our well-being that are the fa?ade of a money-grubbing campaign to shore up failed institutions.
Plenty of drivers shouldn't be on the road in the first place, many exercise poor judgement, and they negatively impact their communities. As longa s this is the reality, you will have speed enforcement. Want to run full tilt without "harassment"? Go rent some tiem on a closed track and get it out of your system.
QuoteA pox on your house.
Yeah yeah, whatever.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:09:41 PM
Posts like yours ignores the reality that for most agencies, they don't get the money from tickets. The revenue is NOT the motivating factor for most agencies. Of course James can point to a handful of exceptions to that. They aren't the norm.
And yet I've never seen a properly cited valid rebuttal of those from you ever.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 06:21:40 PM
And yet I've never seen a properly cited valid rebuttal of those from you ever.
So because I don't post a link to some website you don't believe me? Fine. Your choice. You are wrong though.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:23:01 PM
So because I don't post a link to some website you don't believe me? Fine. Your choice. You are wrong though.
A valid cite of any sort would be acceptable yes. I don't agree with all of James' stance, but he does at least bring a decent argument.
All you can bring are tirades worthy of an over-sugared three year old.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:23:01 PM
So because I don't post a link to some website you don't believe me? Fine. Your choice. You are wrong though.
(http://dovegreyreader.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/troll.jpg)
Otta, eh? I didn't think you had a name. :huh:
Guys, you could go back and forth forever on this to no real effect.
Here's where I stand, probably about square in the middle of this controversy:
1. I love to speed, but I have my limits.
2. I recognize that speeding can be dangerous, and that enforcement is necessary.
3. If I am the subject of enforcement, I don't consider myself a victim and I don't resent the penalty. When you choose to break the law, you agree in advance to accept the consequences. If they're too much, don't do it. As Harry Truman once said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
4. In a civilized society, you can't have everybody making their own rules. Some regulation is necessary.
5. I do believe that in many cases, speed limits are set too low, in order to cater to the lowest common denominator.
6. I think that speed limits set too low actually undermine safety by breeding disrespect for the law, making speeding seem safe, and blurring the line between safe and dangerous speeding.
7. There is no way to have a speed limit that fits every driver, every car, and every circumstance. It has to be set somewhere, and whevever it is, somebody won't be happy.
8. I'd rather have a higher speed limit, with stricter penalties for violating it, than a low speed limit for which enforcement action is taken randomly, with meaningless penalties.
9. I think that there is a tendency among some people to blame speed for accidents when other things are the root cause.
10. However, there is no denying that higher speeds reduce our margin for error on the roads, and that if you make a mistake at a higher speed, the resulting accident will be worse.
11. Just because the police aren't perfect 100% of the time doesn't mean that they're not overall a good presence to have. I'm a strong supporter of law enforcement.
12. With all the things going on in the world, and all the things I've dealt with in my life, getting a ticket is about near the bottom of things that I have much concern about.
I can only tell you of my personal experience for my area and what I hear from others who work around the country. Not everything is a mouseclick away on the net, even in 2007.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:40:10 PM
I can only tell you of my personal experience for my area? and what I hear from others who work around the country. Not everything is a mouseclick away on the net, even in 2007.
....that's for sure... People get so used to instant information, but not everything on the net is reliable, and some stuff just isn't there at all.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:40:10 PM
I can only tell you of my personal experience for my area? and what I hear from others who work around the country. Not everything is a mouseclick away on the net, even in 2007.
Hmm, I thought you were a professional, and would have more information than that.
Traffic enforcement does entail a portion of what you do for a living doesn't it?
Sorry to disappoint you, but i don't keep a ton of references at my fingertips to buttress my views on every aspect of my job against the naysayers such as you pro-speeders out there. James doesn't even accept personal experiences as valid proof of anything.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:51:57 PM
Sorry to disappoint you, but i don't keep a ton of references at my fingertips to buttress my views on every aspect of my job against the naysayers such as you pro-speeders out there. James doesn't even accept personal experiences as valid proof of anything.
Funny how you assume I'm a pro-speeder.
Anyways, this is all you ever argue about. Its not like you're new to this debate. Its not like you couldn't see the question coming, or that it hadn't been brought up before.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 06:54:44 PM
Funny how you assume I'm a pro-speeder.
Anyways, this is all you ever argue about. Its not like you're new to this debate. Its not like you couldn't see the question coming, or that it hadn't been brought up before.
Yes, I assume that you are a pro-speeder. No, I'm not new to the debate. Nothing in James' stats is going to sway my mind to change my opinion which is based on what I see EVERY day I am working.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:58:47 PM
Yes, I assume that you are a pro-speeder. No, I'm not new to the debate. Nothing in James' stats is going to sway? my mind to change my opinion which is based on what I see EVERY day I am working.
I'm not a pro-speeder perse, I am pro reasonable, logical and effective law enforcement, and much of the speeding enforcement that is done is none of those things.
You see the financial results of citations on the local municipality's coffers every day you work?
And I would never ask you to let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 07:02:25 PM
I'm not a pro-speeder perse, I am pro reasonable, logical and effective law enforcement, and much of the speeding enforcement that is done is none of those things.
You see the financial results of citations on the local municipality's coffers every day you work?
And I would never ask you to let facts get in the way of your opinions.
The effect on local municipality coffers actually depends upon the state.
In my state (Connecticut), the municipalities don't get the proceeds from traffic fines. They all go to the state. Other states do it differently, but it isn't all uniform.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 07:02:25 PM
I'm not a pro-speeder perse, I am pro reasonable, logical and effective law enforcement, and much of the speeding enforcement that is done is none of those things.
You see the financial results of citations on the local municipality's coffers every day you work?
And I would never ask you to let facts get in the way of your opinions.
What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.
No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 06, 2007, 07:05:34 PM
The effect on local municipality coffers actually depends upon the state.
In my state (Connecticut), the municipalities don't get the proceeds from traffic fines.? They all go to the state.? Other states do it differently, but it isn't all uniform.
I know a lot about how the fines are divided up. What I'm asking for is for nameless to actually try and make a case instead of simply ranting.
No money ever flows from the state to the cities?
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 07:06:54 PM
What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.
No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.
In your estimation, what percentage of accidents are actually caused by speeding, as opposed to being caused possibly by other factors, and made worse by speeding?
What is your general philosophy as to where speed limits should be set? On a highway in good condition with reasonable traffic conditions, what do you consider a safe speed to be?
What is the #1 cause?
Of every accident I have ever seen or heard about from friends/family, the root cause has always been inattention.
Now this next part I have no 'data' for, it's just me speculating as being a rationally thinking human being...(also random ramblings)
In no way do I think speeding should be the #1 cause of an accident. Every accident I've seen or heard about would have happened if the person was going at the speed limit vs. 5-10-15mph over. They just weren't paying attention.
Also, IMO, there has never been a greater a widely disrespected common law than speeding. I think if you look at, let's say, some general law with an unbiased and totally removed opinion - and the outcome was like speedings, you'd think it was some sort of joke law.
Name one other law that the majority of citizens do not obey, and the people who enforce the law don't even obey it. Sounds like a silly law to me (or at least it's just written incorrectly, i.e. wrong #'s in a lot of places, mostly highways).
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 07:06:54 PM
What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.
No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.
I've never seen anybody make that suggestion in earnest: I have seen them ask what would happen if the emphasis was taken off speeding and placed on other aspects of traffic enforcement. This distinction seems lost on you entirely.
Speed enforcement is
not effective because speed limits are arbitrarily set and enforced. It is downright dangerous to travel at or below the speed limit during high traffic hours in any large metroplitan area in the country.
Quote from: Champ on September 06, 2007, 07:11:38 PM
What is the #1 cause?
Of every accident I have ever seen or heard about from friends/family, the root cause has always been inattention.
Now this next part I have no 'data' for, it's just me speculating as being a rationally thinking human being...(also random ramblings)
In no way do I think speeding should be the #1 cause of an accident.? Every accident I've seen or heard about would have happened if the person was going at the speed limit vs. 5-10-15mph over.? They just weren't paying attention.
Also, IMO, there has never been a greater a widely disrespected common law than speeding.? I think if you look at, let's say, some general law with an unbiased and totally removed opinion - and the outcome was like speedings, you'd think it was some sort of joke law.
Name one other law that the majority of citizens do not obey, and the people who enforce the law don't even obey it.? Sounds like a silly law to me (or at least it's just written incorrectly, i.e. wrong #'s in a lot of places, mostly highways).
I think inattention is a major cause of accidents, but there are times when speed is a cause.
Driving too fast for conditions can cause an accident, or make one much more likely. There are roads near me where, because of hills and curves, the sight lines aren't very good, and it makes sense to slow down in these areas. Driving faster than the stopping distance within the area you can actually see can be dangerous.
There is also the issue of how far to push the envelope, risk-wise. Inattention and mistakes are more costly at higher speeds.
Quote from: Champ on September 06, 2007, 07:11:38 PM
What is the #1 cause?
Of every accident I have ever seen or heard about from friends/family, the root cause has always been inattention.
Now this next part I have no 'data' for, it's just me speculating as being a rationally thinking human being...(also random ramblings)
In no way do I think speeding should be the #1 cause of an accident.? Every accident I've seen or heard about would have happened if the person was going at the speed limit vs. 5-10-15mph over.? They just weren't paying attention.
Also, IMO, there has never been a greater a widely disrespected common law than speeding.? I think if you look at, let's say, some general law with an unbiased and totally removed opinion - and the outcome was like speedings, you'd think it was some sort of joke law.
Name one other law that the majority of citizens do not obey, and the people who enforce the law don't even obey it.? Sounds like a silly law to me (or at least it's just written incorrectly, i.e. wrong #'s in a lot of places, mostly highways).
There are still laws against sodomy in many states in the union. :huh:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 07:12:25 PM
Speed enforcement is not effective because speed limits are arbitrarily set and enforced. It is downright dangerous to travel at or below the speed limit during high traffic hours in any large metroplitan area in the country.
Or more fun is when a LEO is actually on the highway driving, it's a
rolling blockade. For as far ahead of them as you can see it's just open highway, with 30 cars bumper to bumper right behind him. Like that's safe.... :(
Quote from: Champ on September 06, 2007, 07:15:51 PM
Or more fun is when a LEO is actually on the highway driving, it's a rolling blockade.? For as far ahead of them as you can see it's just open highway, with 30 cars bumper to bumper right behind him.? Like that's safe.... :(
That's very unsafe, whether caused by law enforcement, or left lane campers.
Lack of lane discipline is a major hazard on the roads, in my opinion. It forces drivers who would otherwise stay in one lane to constantly switch lanes to get around drivers who are in the passing lane but not passing.
Like anyone who drives everyday, I have plenty of personal experiences that are just as valid (and probably less biased) than any LEO's. I run into many more problems that are worse than speeding EVERY day I am out on the roads. The number of people on the road that piss me off due to them going too fast is practically ZERO. EVERY time I have had a near-collsion, it had nothing to do with anyone speeding. The vast majority occur at parking-lot speeds.
I will admit that there is ONE time that I lost control of a vehicle (on public roads) because I was going to fast for conditions. It was harmless, though, and I knew it would be on that particular road.
BTW, Otta, my licence is suspended already, so you can't use that to modify my behavior. :tounge:
I'M A RACE CAR DRIVER! :evildude:
?Speeding? is not that hazardous, certainly overstated by ?official? statistics everywhere but, in fact, unsupported by your own data. JY
QuoteIf speeding is not hazardous, why is it a factor in so many accidents. And don't point to your books of stats. Go toa few accidents and tell me speed wasn't a factor. Oh yeah, right...youw ere an EMT or some such thing in a former life. We will never agree, James.
No, we will never agree but that doesn?t mean that you are entitled to your own set of facts. You are just lying to yourself.
The hazards of ?speeding,? are greatly overblown, as even your own stats show. When speed too fast for conditions, speed too slow for conditions, any speed in excess of a posted limit and any unsafe lane change are called ?speed-related? by NHTSA, then ?speeding? become hazardous.
What else are we supposed to look at but the measures and descriptions of what happened? You try to scare us with the discredited
Signal 32-style rhetoric but that old dog doesn?t hunt any more. I?ve been to more than a few crashes and I used to work in the ER at a large trauma hospital when I was in college so I?ve seen my share of the results of crashes. That?s why I work so hard to prevent them using scientific methods rather than the groundless emotional appeal that you employ.
Not only that, but stopping speeding ? that is, slowing down all traffic ? has a very high cost. The consequences of speed enforcement are a loss of productivity that runs into the trillions and an increase in the distrust of and belligerence toward law enforcement in general. JY
QuoteSo what.....the alternative for many people is never getting there at all because they are dead vs slowing down. Put a dollar value on those peoples lives, James.
We have put a dollar value of those peoples? lives through actuarial calculations and the cost of slowing down traffic as envisioned by most enforcement agencies and other anti-destination leaguers overwhelms the cost of those lost lives by a magnitude of about 25.
Also, the alternative to slowing down is not death as you intimate. That?s just dishonest
Drivers should be able to decide on their own what speed to drive without the constant harassment and faux-concern for our well-being that are the fa?ade of a money-grubbing campaign to shore up failed institutions. JY
QuotePlenty of drivers shouldn't be on the road in the first place, many exercise poor judgement, and they negatively impact their communities. As longa s this is the reality, you will have speed enforcement.
While it is true that plenty of drivers ought not be on the roads, speed enforcement hardly begins to address that issue but merely burdens
all drivers. How many times have posters here suggested that enforcement target problematic drivers and leave those traveling faster than the arbitrary signs alone?
Let?s face fasts. Speed enforcement has become institutionalized and generates hundreds of billions in revenue so it won?t go away just because it does damage. We have long forgotten why we used to enforce speed laws and the excuses for doing so seem to change daily.
QuoteWant to run full tilt without "harassment"? Go rent some tiem on a closed track and get it out of your system.
You just don?t get it. I have no desire for breakneck speeds and get no thrill out of simply driving fast. To me, the speed that I choose is a tool to get me from one place to another at the least expenditure of time consistent with my personal calculus of safety. I don?t need you to tell me what that speed is or to bother me if it happens to be in excess of your stupid limits, albeit well within the range of common speeds on common highways.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 06:51:57 PM
Sorry to disappoint you, but i don't keep a ton of references at my fingertips to buttress my views on every aspect of my job against the naysayers such as you pro-speeders out there. James doesn't even accept personal experiences as valid proof of anything.
That's because personal experience by itself is inadequate to explain the phenomenon of which we speak. Even worse, you don't seem to be able to synthesize your personal experiences with other established knowledge to create an understanding that goes beyond what your buddies are telling you.
Quote from: NACar on September 06, 2007, 07:20:29 PM
BTW, Otta, my licence is suspended already, so you can't use that to modify my behavior.? ?:tounge:
Is your license really suspended Nick? For what?
Quote from: dazzleman on September 06, 2007, 07:33:08 PM
Is your license really suspended Nick? For what?
My South Carolina license has been suspended for several months (and for the second time) because I cancelled the insurance on a car that I sold.
It doesn't bother me a bit, though, because I have a perfectly valid Maine license. :lol:
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 07:06:54 PM
What we have IS reasonable and logical and effective law enforcement. The suggestions of some here to ignore the speeders is NOT logical, it is not effective.
No, I see the accidents that are caused by speeding every day I work. To me what I see ARE facts.
Effective traffic law enforcement would yield definable and measureable results in the three key safety measures and a change in intensity or focus would result in a predictable change in one or more of those figures. Such is not the case with enforcement right now. They keep doing the same old thing because it generates over a hundred billion dollars a year and it's what they do. They don't think seriously about changing their behavior because they do not work to improve safety but to write citations. Again, it's what they do.
You have no idea if those crashes are caused by speed or by something else. C'mon, you're just being dishonest.
Quote from: NACar on September 06, 2007, 07:38:21 PM
My South Carolina license has been suspended for several months (and for the second time) because I cancelled the insurance on a car that I sold.
It doesn't bother me a bit, though, because I have a perfectly valid Maine license.? :lol:
Hah, and I thought you were having some fun out there. :lol: That's a lame reason for a license suspension.
I've never had my license suspended, but I've been threatened with it twice, once for a valid reason and once because of a mistake by Connecticut's Centralized Infractions Bureau.
The first time, I was accumulating points on my license, and I just got a warning letter telling me that if I continued to accumulate points, they'd have to suspend my license.
The second time, I had gotten a speeding ticket, and I mailed in the ticket with a plea, as instructed on the ticket itself. I didn't hear back from the state until I got a letter telling me that I had not responded to my ticket, and that if I failed to do so, my license would be suspended.
I'm glad to hear you at least have a license in one state. :ohyeah:
Most speed limits are under what is safe for the ideal circumstances, seeing as how the 70 mph maximum was set in the '50s when both passive and active safety systems were pretty much non-existent. To argue otherwise is really just ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the real world. For modern speed limits, I think that 85-90 would be a reasonable limit during the day for much of my commute, with a lower limit for night time driving and adverse conditions (ie: rain).
If speed limits are so effective, why did highway fatalities per million miles INCREASE when the year the national speed limit became mandate? And decrease the year it was lifted?
If PDs were really serious about traffic safety, they would definitely focus on more important things than speeding, things that cause accidents (speeding by itself rarely does, except in low traction/low visibility conditions). Improper lane changes, tailgating, distractions, and racing. I'd even wager that left lane camping as an indirect motivation (frustration that results in impatience which results in the things mentioned earlier) causes more accidents than speeding does.
I am not sure who decides what laws police enforce most strongly, whether it is the state government, local government, the police department, or the individual officer.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 06, 2007, 07:09:09 PM
In your estimation, what percentage of accidents are actually caused by speeding, as opposed to being caused possibly by other factors, and made worse by speeding?
Splitting hairs a bit there, don't you think? You aren't going to get a lot of accidents that are strictly speed related ( no other factors ) as in they went so fast they went airborne and impacted a tree twenty feet off the ground ( real accident ) , but you will have speed be a factor in a LOT of accidents where if the speed had been more moderate, they wouldn't have gotten into the accident. I particularly like to point that out to people in the winter when they are standing by their wrecked car and I hear something along the lines of " I just slid
A;off the road/
B: into the path of that car/
C: whatever excuse they have as to why they wrecked.
I point out that everyone in the steady stream of traffic going by doesn't have the same problem. Now why is that i ask the driver ? Answer: probably because they aren't speeding around like they are on dry pavement.
QuoteWhat is your general philosophy as to where speed limits should be set?? On a highway in good condition with reasonable traffic conditions, what do you consider a safe speed to be?
Interstate of standard Interstate design, dry pavement, clear lines of sight, non-urban environment etc? I would say probably 80-85 MPH would still be safe enough. I wouldn't change state, county or local roads at all from what they are posted though.
Quote from: NACar on September 06, 2007, 04:22:06 PM
:rolleyes:
You're a troll because the only thing you do is argue about how perfect our traffic laws and enforcement is.
Agreeing with the law doesn't make you atroll- it makes you a preson who likes the laws. Stop calling names please.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 06, 2007, 04:29:00 PM
Facts? Like James' "facts"?? take the "fact" that was presented above about distracted driving being the #1 cause of accidents...righhtttt..You guys just don't like hearing that speeding, something you guys love to do, can be hazardous. You hate any enforcement that inhibits your ability to speed to your hearts content.
AFAIK I've never contradicted myself. Feel free to cite an example.
Gotta agree with you here- I love speeding- even as a police officer-? but I know that my speed can easily cause me to crash because of outdriving my ca4rs limits.? People like James refuse to acknowledge that because it undermines their arguments that we should be allowed to drive any speed we want.? ?Fact is when officers write in that speeding was a contributing factore on traffic crash resports it's because we have several ways to determine the vehicles speeds vs. known stopping distances of specific cars.? It's easy to determine and even James "50+ years " of traffic whatever he said- you know- the one he's been involved with since he was 12.? ?:rolleyes: knows it's true.? Examples are crush factors- skid lengths vs. friction vs. weather conditions vs. road material and conditions etc.? ? He likes to taught science but doesn't want to actually use it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 06, 2007, 04:31:19 PM
The fact that tickets can and do increase revenue?
On daily patrols yes- on special patrols like we did this weekend it actually cost us money- which was my point of this thread. Even if I ddidnt' make it clear enough that was my poin.t
Quote from: dazzleman on September 06, 2007, 07:09:09 PM
In your estimation, what percentage of accidents are actually caused by speeding, as opposed to being caused possibly by other factors, and made worse by speeding?
What is your general philosophy as to where speed limits should be set?? On a highway in good condition with reasonable traffic conditions, what do you consider a safe speed to be?
I know you didn't ask me but I don't think that most crashes are
caused by speeding- but I do think most accidents maybe 80% have speeing as a major contributing factor- like you said in another post speeing definately makes the crashes worse. I also think that the higher the speed the less likely most driver are going to be able to make the right moves to avoid the crash.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 06, 2007, 07:19:49 PM
That's very unsafe, whether caused by law enforcement, or left lane campers.
Lack of lane discipline is a major hazard on the roads, in my opinion.? It forces drivers who would otherwise stay in one lane to constantly switch lanes to get around drivers who are in the passing lane but not passing.
It's pretty safe when the police do it because most people wont' do anything stupid to get around the police- plus it's just bucket fulls of fun to do! :rockon:
Quote from: NACar on September 06, 2007, 07:38:21 PM
My South Carolina license has been suspended for several months (and for the second time) because I cancelled the insurance on a car that I sold.
It doesn't bother me a bit, though, because I have a perfectly valid Maine license.? :lol:
If you drive into Michigan (which I know isn't real likely) or the surrounding states and get stopped you will get arrested and locked up for "operating without a valid license" because one state suspended you. If you are suspended most states don't recognize your valid license. Sorry man- I don't make the rules.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 03:10:28 PM
Agreeing with the law doesn't make you atroll- it makes you a preson who likes the laws. Stop calling names please.
He is not a troll simply because he agrees with the law. :rolleyes:
Quothe Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."the nameless one" comes to a
car enthusiast forum and preaches speedlimits. He uses the same arguments time and again, while dismissing anybody who disagrees as a speed-crazy lunatic that has no concern for anyone's safety. He is a troll.
Quote from: NACar on September 07, 2007, 03:33:21 PM
He is not a troll simply because he agrees with the law. :rolleyes:
Quothe Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.
"the nameless one" comes to a car enthusiast forum and preaches speedlimits. He uses the same arguments time and again, while dismissing anybody who disagrees as a speed-crazy lunatic that has no concern for anyone's safety. He is a troll.
Don't roll your eyes at me- I'm not the one acting childish calling names. :lol: :lol: Even if he is a troll- have some maturity man! Let it go- it's just a forum! :lol:
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 03:31:36 PM
If you drive into Michigan (which I know isn't real likely) or the surrounding states and get stopped you will get arrested and locked up for "operating without a valid license" because one state suspended you. If you are suspended most states don't recognize your valid license. Sorry man- I don't make the rules.
My SC license was suspended (via a letter in the mail) several months after I had traded it in for my Maine license.
If they don't like it, they can kiss my a$$.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 03:35:25 PM
Don't roll your eyes at me- I'm not the one acting childish calling names. :lol: :lol: Even if he is a troll- have some maturity man! Let it go- it's just a forum! :lol:
It's not like I called him a stupid p00p head butt licker! I was just stating a fact. :praise:
Quote from: NACar on September 07, 2007, 03:43:25 PM
It's not like I called him a stupid p00p head butt licker! I was just stating a fact.? :praise:
Oh-
fact - that's entirely different. :lol:
Quote from: NACar on September 07, 2007, 03:41:15 PM
My SC license was suspended (via a letter in the mail) several months after I had traded it in for my Maine license.
If they don't like it, they can kiss my a$$.
Yup- I'm sure that attitude will do well for you if you ever do happen to get stopped around here. :P :lol:
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 03:45:21 PM
Oh- fact - that's entirely different. :lol:
Ok... it's more like a hypothesis.
I can say that, because in two different classes I had today, both professors spent a good ten minutes explaining the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. :lol:
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 03:46:11 PM
Yup- I'm sure that attitude will do well for you if you ever do happen to get stopped around here. :P :lol:
You guys can't catch me! :evildude:
Quote from: NACar on September 07, 2007, 03:54:17 PM
Ok... it's more like a hypothesis.
I can say that, because in two different classes I had today, both professors spent a good ten minutes explaining the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. :lol:
You guys can't catch me!? :evildude:
Classes? I never went to no college! :lol:
And with that attitude who would want to catch you? :evildude:
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 03:15:33 PM
Gotta agree with you here- I love speeding- even as a police officer- but I know that my speed can easily cause me to crash because of outdriving my ca4rs limits. People like James refuse to acknowledge that because it undermines their arguments that we should be allowed to drive any speed we want. Fact is when officers write in that speeding was a contributing factore on traffic crash resports it's because we have several ways to determine the vehicles speeds vs. known stopping distances of specific cars. It's easy to determine and even James "50+ years " of traffic whatever he said- you know- the one he's been involved with since he was 12. :rolleyes: knows it's true. Examples are crush factors- skid lengths vs. friction vs. weather conditions vs. road material and conditions etc. He likes to taught science but doesn't want to actually use it.
You can outdrive your car's limits at 30.
Rohan - two weeks ago we went to Detroit from MN via 94 to the Saab Owner's Convention, and a lot of the staties that were setup under bridges had something on their hood like a flip up sign... Do you know what that is / what it says? We could never read it. :huh:
Quote from: Champ on September 07, 2007, 06:13:09 PM
Rohan - two weeks ago we went to Detroit from MN via 94 to the Saab Owner's Convention, and a lot of the staties that were setup under bridges had something on their hood like a flip up sign... Do you know what that is / what it says?? We could never read it. :huh:
It says "stop Police" That and the gumball are something of a tradition among the MSP.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 07, 2007, 06:19:06 PM
It says "stop Police" That and the gumball are something of a tradition among the MSP.
It also says either state police or Michigan state police.? It was used for side stops- something we don't do anymore- they would pull up alongside a car they wanted stopped and turn on the light inside that unit and the car would pull over.? It's from before there were overhead lights- and it's not functional for todays times because pulling alongside someone you are trying to stop is just dangerous.? The modern ones still light up and some guys still use them in certain situations so people know its the police- but not very often and not very many do it- when they pull into driveways in the middle of the night and things like that.
And the gumball is about to be a thing of the past too- they are getting ready to start using newer style light bars because they can't get much in the way of parts for the old lights anymore. But it's still the brightest most visible light out there- you can see it for miles.
MSP is full of traditions that get cars stolen and guys killed like no cages- wearing ties that sometimes cause guys to overheat- and up until about 10 years ago they were carrying cross draw holsters- and mandatory dress hats in all weather conditions- poor traffic stop tatics-? not calling out traffic stops through dispatch - and a few others.
Quote from: TBR on September 07, 2007, 05:59:06 PM
You can outdrive your car's limits at 30.
right- part of the speed vs. weather vs. road conditions ...... I remarkde on.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 06:25:15 PM
It also says either state police or Michigan state police.? It was used for side stops- something we don't do anymore- they would pull up alongside a car they wanted stopped and turn on the light inside that unit and the car would pull over.? It's from before there were overhead lights- and it's not functional for todays times because pulling alongside someone you are trying to stop is just dangerous.? The modern ones still light up and some guys still use them in certain situations so people know its the police- but not very often and not very many do it- when they pull into driveways in the middle of the night and things like that.
And the gumball is about to be a thing of the past too- they are getting ready to start using newer style light bars because they can't get much in the way of parts for the old lights anymore.? But it's still the brightest most visible light out there- you can see it for miles.
MSP is full of traditions that get cars stolen and guys killed like no cages- wearing ties that sometimes cause guys to overheat- and up until about 10 years ago they were carrying cross draw holsters- and mandatory dress hats in all weather conditions- poor traffic stop tatics-? not calling out traffic stops through dispatch - and a few others.
I'll take your word for all that, but I still will regret the demise of the gumballs. They new strobe flashing, three tier light combos can sometimes nearly blind you on a dark road as you drive past them, the gumballs are big, bright, and easy to locate and identify. With some of the modern combinations, its hard to tell even how many cars are on the side of the road, or how far they or it is off the travel lanes.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 07, 2007, 07:10:49 PM
I'll take your word for all that, but I still will regret the demise of the gumballs. They new strobe flashing, three tier light combos can sometimes nearly blind you on a dark road as you drive past them, the gumballs are big, bright, and easy to locate and identify. With some of the modern combinations, its hard to tell even how many cars are on the side of the road, or how far they or it is off the travel lanes.
Unity stopped making that light 3-4 years ago, and state shop at the HQ has been scavenging parts ever since then.? And the hole point of the emergency lights being bright is to warn you tha tsomething si up there and to slow down.? ?:lol:? :ohyeah:? If you can't see well because of them maybe you better do just that!!!!!!!? :P :pullover: :pullover: :pullover: :pullover:
Adn- they are using 100,000 cp aircraft landing lights in those bubbles and that makes them even more bright.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 07:50:56 PM
Unity stopped making that light 3-4 years ago, and state shop at the HQ has been scavenging parts ever since then.? And the hole point of the emergency lights being bright is to warn you tha tsomething si up there and to slow down.? ?:lol:? :ohyeah:? If you can't see well because of them maybe you better do just that!!!!!!!? :P :pullover: :pullover: :pullover: :pullover:
There's bright and there's too bright, and I think some of them are too bright. Also some of the patterns are distracting with all the randomly flashing strobes. The gumball is quite bright, but also it has a predictable repateing pattern, doesn't seem to bounce all over the place, and being red doesn't effect your night vision as much as blue does.
My eyesight is quite good, and its not like i've ever found any cop car's lights bright or distracting enough to be dangerous, but it's just that I think the gumballs are a safer and more effective type of emergency light.
I agree- I prefer the old style rotators with reflective mirror lenses than the led's their using now.? I don't like those and I like the strobes but not as much as the rotators.? And having spent more than a? decade and a half working on the side of the freeway- there is no such thing as too bright when it comes to warning lights- bad weather in Michigan comes and goes as fast as can be especially in winter.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 08:05:03 PM
I agree- I prefer the old style rotators with reflective mirror lenses than the led's their using now.? I don't like those and I like the strobes but not as much as the rotators.? And having spent more than a? decade and a half working on the side of the freeway- there is no such thing as too bright when it comes to warning lights- bad weather in Michigan comes and goes as fast as can be especially in winter.
You're right about the weather, but I think there's a bit of a problem with the way most emergency lights are setup.
For one, they all tend to use the same pattern day or night. Ultra bright may be necessary during the day, but can be blinding at night, and you want people to still be able to see the road ahead of them as well as the car on the side of the road.
A lot of what I see about the effectiveness of the newer lights claims things like "readily visible at 5000 ft." Well, that's all well and good; but seeing something 5000 ft away and seeinfg where something is, what it is, and whether or not its moving at 1000 ft may be more important.
I'm not attacking you here- but it's not your butt out there it's ours. If it's too bright-
S L O W D O W N
It'll help you to see what;'s on the road ahead of you.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 08:19:12 PM
I'm not attacking you here- but it's not your butt out there it's ours.? If it's too bright-
S? ? L? ? O? ? W? ? ? ? ? ? D? ? O? ? W? ? N
It'll help you to see what;'s on the road ahead of you.?
Trust me, I don't want to rear end you almost as badly as you don't want me to.
All I'm saying is that some lights seem to be more effective and safer than others, and that the old school gumballs seem to me to be the best ones I regularly see.
Thanks for the clear-up! We couldn't figure out what they said for the life of us.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteInterstate of standard Interstate design, dry pavement, clear lines of sight, non-urban environment etc? I would say probably 80-85 MPH would still be safe enough. I wouldn't change state, county or local roads at all from what they are posted though.
Yet, 85 mph is anywhere from 10 mph to 30 mph faster than present limits and that?s the very behavior that enforcement focuses on. You admit the speeds actually being driven are safe and then turn around and cite somebody for them. Kind of hypocritical, wouldn?t you say?
Of course, there are no such highways anywhere near Ithaca.
Rohan writes:
QuoteGotta agree with you here- I love speeding- even as a police officer- but I know that my speed can easily cause me to crash because of outdriving my ca4rs limits. People like James refuse to acknowledge that because it undermines their arguments that we should be allowed to drive any speed we want.
Recognition that cars and drivers have limits hardly undermines my argument that speed limits are unnecessary, counterproductive, costly and widely abused by enforcement because that very assumption is built into the reasoning behind engineering limits such as the 85th percentile for urban roadways and the newly-emerging 95th percentile on rural and interstate-grade roadways.
Nearly every driver on the planet acts in his own self interest and self preservation, despite continuing claims from enforcement that a majority of them are doing stupid, self-destructive things. The very few drivers who actually
are self-destructive are not the real target of most enforcement effort.
The problem is that drivers? limits and modern vehicle limits exceed the posted limits by such a large margin that the posted limits have become meaningless. The fact is that very few drivers exceed their vehicles? capabilities. Crashes result far more often from failures to pay attention ? either through chemical impairment; distractions such as passengers, exogenous influences and cell phones; or sleep deprivation (huge issue) ? than from speed too fast for conditions.
Thus, it is you who has failed to incorporate some critical changes in conditions into your analysis because they undermine your argument.
QuoteFact is when officers write in that speeding was a contributing factore on traffic crash resports it's because we have several ways to determine the vehicles speeds vs. known stopping distances of specific cars. It's easy to determine and even James "50+ years " of traffic whatever he said- you know- the one he's been involved with since he was 12. knows it's true. Examples are crush factors- skid lengths vs. friction vs. weather conditions vs. road material and conditions etc. He likes to taught science but doesn't want to actually use it.
No, the really sad truth is that the typical officer who writes the report of anything less than a fatality crash does not generally have any knowledge of crush factors, skid distances, adhesion coefficients, crumple zones of particular cars, etc. They write reports. Period. They check off boxes on a standardized form. Their ?investigation? is limited in scope and in depth.
There are a few qualified accident reconstructionists out there and they have some cool new tools with PC programs that help them with the calculations. Hats off to them.
QuoteOn daily patrols yes- on special patrols like we did this weekend it actually cost us money- which was my point of this thread. Even if I ddidnt' make it clear enough that was my poin.t
I don?t believe that for a minute. I?ve already done the math for you. And the feds paid for a good chunk of your time. And I also don?t believe that such campaigns are for anything more elegant or worthwhile than a good PR pitch to the public to make them think that you?re really doing something.
QuoteI know you didn't ask me but I don't think that most crashes are caused by speeding- but I do think most accidents maybe 80% have speeing as a major contributing factor- like you said in another post speeing definately makes the crashes worse. I also think that the higher the speed the less likely most driver are going to be able to make the right moves to avoid the crash.
Speed is a factor in everything having to do with vehicles because that is their purpose: to elevate the speed at which man can travel. Even according to your own data, speed too fast for conditions is but a paltry contributor to crashes. And, of course, even that is not what enforcement actually looks for, instead taking the low-hanging fruit of ?speeders,? who happen to exceed an arbitrary number.
QuoteIt's pretty safe when the police do it because most people wont' do anything stupid to get around the police- plus it's just bucket fulls of fun to do!
That?s just chickensh!t. Then you wonder why the public disrespects you so much.
Quote from: James Young on September 07, 2007, 08:36:16 PM
Recognition that cars and drivers have limits hardly undermines my argument that speed limits are unnecessary, counterproductive, costly and widely abused by enforcement because that very assumption is built into the reasoning behind engineering limits such as the 85th percentile for urban roadways and the newly-emerging 95th percentile on rural and interstate-grade roadways.?
Do you have a link to a valid source for this?? ?Somehting like a government inquiry showing what you claim?
QuoteNearly every driver on the planet acts in his own self interest and self preservation, despite continuing claims from enforcement that a majority of them are doing stupid, self-destructive things.? ?The very few drivers who actually are self-destructive are not the real target of most enforcement effort.?
Right- like driving well over 100 mph on secondary roads- drag racing- drifting on public roads- doing wheelies on motorcycles at well over speedlimits- driving drunk- should I go on?? Your point here is BS because we do target those very things or at the very least take action wehen found.
QuoteThus, it is you who has failed to incorporate some critical changes in conditions into your analysis because they undermine your argument.
More blah blah blah from the blah blah blah king.? Some sort of proof?
QuoteNo, the really sad truth is that the typical officer who writes the report of anything less than a fatality crash does not generally have any knowledge of crush factors, skid distances, adhesion coefficients, crumple zones of particular cars, etc.? They write reports.? Period.? They check off boxes on a standardized form.? Their ?investigation? is limited in scope and in depth.
? Link ?? Can you proove this or is it more of your blatant lies?
QuoteThere are a few qualified accident reconstructionists out there and they have some cool new tools with PC programs that help them with the calculations.? Hats off to them.
Hey genius- there are WAAAYYY more than a few- and you don't need to use computers for it- all it takes is a paper- pencil- eraser- calculator- ruler- and book with some basic figures and information.
QuoteI don?t believe that for a minute.? I?ve already done the math for you.? And the feds paid for a good chunk of your time.? And I also don?t believe that such campaigns are for anything more elegant or worthwhile than a good PR pitch to the public to make them think that you?re really doing something.
? ?Really?? Did you come up with $33,801.60 dollars?? Because that's what it cost to put? guys out for 8 shifts at 8 hours at $25.15 X 3.5.? We received exactly $$15,000 from the federal government.? And considering our #1 request this last summer was for more traffic enforcement from our tax paying citizens - they got exactly what they wanted.
QuoteSpeed is a factor in everything having to do with vehicles because that is their purpose:? to elevate the speed at which man can travel.? ?Even according to your own data, speed too fast for conditions is but a paltry contributor to crashes.? And, of course, even that is not what enforcement actually looks for, instead taking the low-hanging fruit of ?speeders,? who happen to exceed an arbitrary number.
That's because "speed too fast for conditions is just about only written when the roads are icy/snowy/drifted and regular speed enforcement is almost impossible.?
QuoteThat?s just chickensh!t.? Then you wonder why the public disrespects you so much.
Oh well- and frankly- I don't care if the public trusts me or not.? That's not my job and it's never going to be- I'm paid to handle officers and the occasional report- period.? Most officers I know also don't care either- why- it's not our job to care it's our job to enforce the law.? Not write law- not change law- not argue law- not argue a laws merits- ENFORCEMENT.
And by the way- hows that 50+ years of experience in this field from the time you were 12 treatin ya?? ?:rolleyes:
Does it seem reasonable to you though to think that the more the public trusts the law enforcement establishment as a whole, the easier your job will be?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 07, 2007, 10:12:47 PM
Does it seem reasonable to you though to think that the more the public trusts the law enforcement establishment as a whole, the easier your job will be?
It does- but as a patrol officer- thats not my job.? My job is to go out a nd attempt to locate-deter-and stop crime.? Not to mention all the other 500million redundant tasks we have to do.? Whether or not the public trusts me is by far my least concern- and I don't trust one of them so why should I really care?
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 10:59:34 PM
It does- but as a patrol officer- thats not my job.? My job is to go out a nd attempt to locate-deter-and stop crime.? Not to mention all the other 500million redundant tasks we have to do.? Whether or not the public trusts me is by far my least concern- and I don't trust one of them so why should I really care?
I would think that to a certain extent public relations- non-criminal public at least (they do exist)- is at least some part of every officer's job.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 07, 2007, 11:07:58 PM
I would think that to a certain extent public relations- non-criminal public at least (they do exist)- is at least some part of every officer's job.
Doesn't mean we hav e to like them trust them or even be nice to them.? It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.? ?No where in my general orders book does it say I have tob e nice or like or trust them or even care if they trust me- all it says is that I can't be rude it even recognizes the need to curse and use exceptionally vulgar language "when needed.? The deputy on scene is the best qualifier to when or if this sort of language is needed and whether it will be useful to his or her fulfilling his duties."? If it aint in there-? :huh:
A prime example of why we don't care if you trust or not is the ongoing debate in the "interesting" thread.? ?The public won't even listen or attempt to understand police or even what citizens basic rights are and who those rights pertain to.
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 11:36:54 PM
Doesn't mean we hav e to like them trust them or even be nice to them.? It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.? ?No where in my general orders book does it say I have tob e nice or like or trust them or even care if they trust me- all it says is that I can't be rude it even recognizes the need to curse and use exceptionally vulgar language "when needed.? The deputy on scene is the best qualifier to when or if this sort of language is needed and whether it will be useful to his or her fulfilling his duties."? If it aint in there-? :huh:
A prime example of why we don't care if you trust or not is the ongoing debate in the "interesting" thread.? ?The public won't even listen or attempt to understand police or even what citizens basic rights are and who those rights pertain to.
No, I've been completely trollish and unwilling to discuss that matter intelligently at all. :rolleyes:
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 11:36:54 PM
Doesn't mean we hav e to like them trust them or even be nice to them.? It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.? ?No where in my general orders book does it say I have tob e nice or like or trust them or even care if they trust me- all it says is that I can't be rude it even recognizes the need to curse and use exceptionally vulgar language "when needed.? The deputy on scene is the best qualifier to when or if this sort of language is needed and whether it will be useful to his or her fulfilling his duties."? If it aint in there-? :huh:
A prime example of why we don't care if you trust or not is the ongoing debate in the "interesting" thread.? ?The public won't even listen or attempt to understand police or even what citizens basic rights are and who those rights pertain to.
Rohan, I think you're wrong in your attitude.
Much of the public is inclined to trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are dealing with criminals.
You seem to be lumping the criminals and public into one group hostile to the police. That is really not the case at all, but if you believe that and act accordingly, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
If there are reasonable traffic laws and reasonable enforcement tactics, most people will accept it without too much complaint if and when they do get tagged by one of the guys in blue. The problem is when the laws are perceived by a large number of people to be unreasonable, and 'gotcha' tactics are used to enforce them.
Some of the views expressed here are pretty doctrinaire and shouldn't be taken as an indication of the general public attitude. Still, you should re-examine your own attitude, because over the longer term, that attitude could be a danger to your career.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 08, 2007, 06:41:31 AM
Rohan, I think you're wrong in your attitude.
Much of the public is inclined to trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are dealing with criminals.
You seem to be lumping the criminals and public into one group hostile to the police. That is really not the case at all, but if you believe that and act accordingly, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
If there are reasonable traffic laws and reasonable enforcement tactics, most people will accept it without too much complaint if and when they do get tagged by one of the guys in blue. The problem is when the laws are perceived by a large number of people to be unreasonable, and 'gotcha' tactics are used to enforce them.
Some of the views expressed here are pretty doctrinaire and shouldn't be taken as an indication of the general public attitude. Still, you should re-examine your own attitude, because over the longer term, that attitude could be a danger to your career.
I was pretty darned grumpy when I wrote that- I was closing out a 12 hour shift - 8 hrs regular puls OT to boot. I probably should have left the site when I started getting frustrated- even though that;'s a good description of how I feel it's not completely true- I do care but only because I'm a supervisor- if I was still just a line deputy I wouldn't care at all if people trusted me because most people don't trust cops and nothing I'll ever do will change that- And trying to change that perception just isn't my job as a line dep.. Sorry- just how I feel.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 08:14:19 AM
I was pretty darned grumpy when I wrote that- I was closing out a 12 hour shift - 8 hrs regular puls OT to boot. I probably should have left the site when I started getting frustrated- even though that;'s a good description of how I feel it's not completely true- I do care but only because I'm a supervisor- if I was still just a line deputy I wouldn't care at all if people trusted me because most people don't trust cops and nothing I'll ever do will change that- And trying to change that perception just isn't my job as a line dep.. Sorry- just how I feel.
I think you have it backwards to an extent.
The line deputy is the person the public is most likely to deal with.
Criminals don't trust cops, for good reason, but most law-abiding citizens do. Most traffic violators are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it's only a hard-core fringe that doesn't trust the police.
I think the problem most LEOs have is that they don't often deal with the better portions of the public; they deal most often with the scumbags. It's easy to suppose, after a while, that these people are representative of the public, and act accordingly. But that is a major mistake. Most people out there support the police, and as Catman has said correctly, the police depend upon public trust in a larger sense to do their job.
There's no sense making an enemy out of people who will generally regard you as a friend. And most of the public will, even if you give them a speeding ticket on occasion.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 09, 2007, 08:21:36 AM
I think you have it backwards to an extent.
The line deputy is the person the public is most likely to deal with.
Criminals don't trust cops, for good reason, but most law-abiding citizens do. Most traffic violators are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it's only a hard-core fringe that doesn't trust the police.
I think the problem most LEOs have is that they don't often deal with the better portions of the public; they deal most often with the scumbags. It's easy to suppose, after a while, that these people are representative of the public, and act accordingly. But that is a major mistake. Most people out there support the police, and as Catman has said correctly, the police depend upon public trust in a larger sense to do their job.
There's no sense making an enemy out of people who will generally regard you as a friend. And most of the public will, even if you give them a speeding ticket on occasion.
Unfortunately my experiences are much different than your perception- most people don't trust cops- especially in urban areas.
As much as I like and respect Greg he doesn't work those areas. Maybe he did in the past but he's working an upscale probably mostly white area from what I've read.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 08:40:21 AM
Unfortunately my experiences are much different than your perception- most people don't trust cops- especially in urban areas.
As much as I like and respect Greg he doesn't work those areas. Maybe he did in the past but he's working an upscale probably mostly white area from what I've read.
Sorry to quote my own post- but I'm going to anyway- I think I should go on with that and say thatmost white people do trust the poliec as part of how they were raised but most minorities don't. Hell- Ididn't even trust the police as a white guy until I met Tony and then it took him helping me before I trusted him and then I still didn't trust him for a while.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 08:40:21 AM
Unfortunately my experiences are much different than your perception- most people don't trust cops- especially in urban areas.
As much as I like and respect Greg he doesn't work those areas. Maybe he did in the past but he's working an upscale probably mostly white area from what I've read.
You're right about the difference in trust for the police between whites and minorities. Whites definitely have a much higher trust of the police.
Greg does work in a mostly white area, but I'm not sure if it's upscale or not. From what he describes, it's pretty blue collar. That's the type of area I thought you worked in -- white blue collar.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 09, 2007, 09:41:42 AM
You're right about the difference in trust for the police between whites and minorities. Whites definitely have a much higher trust of the police.
That's because white people are
stupid.
:ohyeah:
Quote from: rohan on September 07, 2007, 11:36:54 PM
It just means we have to do our jobs to a level that is satisfactory to our bosses.
But the public is your boss. They pay your check and make the laws you enforce.
I would think any civil servant should understand the need for good public-relations.
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 10:06:32 AM
But the public is your boss. They pay your check and make the laws you enforce.
I would think any civil servant should understand the need for good public-relations.
The public is not my boss- the patrol LT is- his boss is the Operations Captain- his boss is the Operations Major- his boss is the Chief Deputy- his boss is the Undersheriff- his boss is the Sheriff- and his boss is the County Board of Commissioners. The public only pays me- they don't get to tell me what to do and I don't answer to them I answer to my chain of command.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 09, 2007, 09:41:42 AM
You're right about the difference in trust for the police between whites and minorities. Whites definitely have a much higher trust of the police.
Greg does work in a mostly white area, but I'm not sure if it's upscale or not. From what he describes, it's pretty blue collar. That's the type of area I thought you worked in -- white blue collar.
I work a very diverse area with urban suburban and rural areas. I have people making probably several million a year to people making less than probably $5000 a year. And we treat them all the same- or at least try to - no matter how it looks to the public. In all honestly - our Sheriff is a great patrol officers boss- he has the PR button turned down because he's a elected official who's only requirements by law are to operate a jail and investigate drowinings. If people don't like what he's doing he can just pull the patrols altogether and he has threatened to do it a couple times legend has it.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 11:18:58 AM
The public is not my boss- the patrol LT is- his boss is the Operations Captain- his boss is the Operations Major- his boss is the Chief Deputy- his boss is the Undersheriff- his boss is the Sheriff- and his boss is the County Board of Commissioners. The public only pays me- they don't get to tell me what to do and I don't answer to them I answer to my chain of command.
Your superiors, and ergo you, must certainly ultimately answer to the public. What do you think the County Board of Commissioners is? What do you think a Sheriff is? Who do you think makes state statutes?
The answer to the first two questions is ELECTED OFFICIALS, as is the state legislature, which is the answer to the last question.
I know someone who thinks too many people believe government exists as an authority figure, as something which tells them what to do. Government only does what the voters let it.
Rohan, I've had this conversation with hounddog before. I'm not stupid enough to believe I can stroll into your office and fire you, but don't play the fool and refuse to recognize law enforcement as a civic institution. Such a system is ultimately created, operated, and directed by the will of the people. If over time you foster ill public-relations among law-abiding citizens, then you may very well find your system changed.
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 11:33:25 AM
Your superiors, and ergo you, must certainly ultimately answer to the public. What do you think the County Board of Commissioners is? What do you think a Sheriff is? Who do you think makes state statutes?
The answer to the first two questions is ELECTED OFFICIALS, as is the state legislature, which is the answer to the last question.
I know someone who thinks too many people believe government exists as an authority figure, as something which tells them what to do. Government only does what the voters let it.
If you say so. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 11:38:48 AM
Rohan, I've had this conversation with hounddog before. I'm not stupid enough to believe I can stroll into your office and fire you, but don't play the fool and refuse to recognize law enforcement as a civic institution. Such a system is ultimately created, operated, and directed by the will of the people. If over time you foster ill public-relations among law-abiding citizens, then you may very well find your system changed.
Everything changes- everything always everything whether you are trusted or not. I'm only here for a few years to do an almost impossible where no one is EVER happy with what we do. I frankly lost my desire to care many years ago like most of the veteran offciers I know - work with - and have worked with. Most cops really dislike the public after time on the road and couldn't really care what the public thinks of us. You willalways need us-
Tony was my FTO and one of the things he taught me was that we are hire to enforce the law not be popular- if you want to be popular you're oin the wrong line of work.
I agree completely with that.
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 12:23:30 PM
Excuse me?
I'm sorry- let me make that more clear-
If
you
say
so.
:rolleyes:
Is that better?
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 12:21:42 PM
You willalways need us-
That's really not the point here. We don't need specific officers. Police reform has happened before and will happen again, usually after public incident. When tensions build between enforcement and community, clashes occur. That is part of our history, but no one is the better for it.
For goodness sake departments even have their own division: internal affairs, to make sure the police is servicing the public as they should.
You're being deliberately obstinate, rohan. I realize you don't have to like me to do your job, and frankly I don't have a problem with that. Whatever. But there's an obvious need for any public agency, like the police force, to foster good public-relations. That's my only point, and one I find so obvious it amazes me I should have to write it out. I'd of thought it a no-brainer. Even if you aren't concerned about it, you can be damn sure your Sheriff is, at least if he wants to be elected next term.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 12:24:59 PM
I'm sorry- let me make that more clear-
If
you
say
so.
:rolleyes:
Is that better?
Uh no, it still doesn't make any sense in context. I have no "say" in that sheriffs and commissioners are elected, and public institutions answer to their people in our system of government. All are verifiable facts.
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 12:32:57 PM
That's really not the point here. We don't need specific officers. Police reform has happened before and will happen again, usually after public incident. When tensions build between enforcement and community, clashes occur. That is part of our history, but no one is the better for it.
For goodness sake departments even have their own division: internal affairs, to make sure the police is servicing the public as they should.
You're being deliberately obstinate, rohan. I realize you don't have to like me to do your job, and frankly I don't have a problem with that. Whatever. But there's an obvious need for any public agency, like the police force, to foster good public-relations. That's my only point, and one I find so obvious it amazes me I should have to write it out. I'd of thought it a no-brainer. Even if you aren't concerned about it, you can be damn sure your Sheriff is, at least if he wants to be elected next term.
No- I'm not being deliberately anything- other than honest. The internal affairs- usually just standard detectives who are handed a case and told to investigate- isn't looking to see if we've lived up to public expectations- they're looking at #1 did we break any local state or federal laws #2 did we break policy or general orders #3 was it intentional #4 was it done with malice #5 totality of circumstances #6 recommendation and remedy. And fostering good public relations with our communtiy was what our putting out extensive traffic enforcement was about this last weekend well two weekends ago now. So I still don't care if they trust me- and I don't have to because they got what they wanted and are happy. And we didn't do anything more than pound on traffic law violators- but it hardly makes them trust us anymore than the day before we started it.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 12:45:01 PM
No- I'm not being deliberately anything- other than honest. The internal affairs- usually just standard detectives who are handed a case and told to investigate- isn't looking to see if we've lived up to public expectations- they're looking at #1 did we break any local state or federal laws #2 did we break policy or general orders #3 was it intentional #4 was it done with malice #5 totality of circumstances #6 recommendation and remedy.
Those are the public's expectations, genius. When policemen break crimes and get away with it, that's bad public relations. That's something the public doesn't want to have happen.
I don't give a shit if you're not friendly with some clown getting a traffic ticket. But I bet you yourself practice positive relations with law-abiding members of society. Are you at least professional with the petty infractor? Do you treat the spousel abuser the same as the spouse? Are you warm and obliging to the old lady who comes in to report a theft? How about the mother and child involved in an auto accident, how do you treat them?
My guess is you treat the honest citizen fairly well, if curt.
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 01:02:12 PM
Those are the public's expectations, genius. When policemen break crimes and get away with it, that's bad public relations. That's something the public doesn't want to have happen.
I don't give a shit if you're not friendly with some clown getting a traffic ticket. But I bet you yourself practice positive relations with law-abiding members of society. Are you at least professional with the petty infractor? Do you treat the spousel abuser the same as the spouse? Are you warm and obliging to the old lady who comes in to report a theft? How about the mother and child involved in an auto accident, how do you treat them?
My guess is you treat the honest citizen fairly well, if curt.
:nono: Quit mouthing off to the LEO, or he'll pistol whip yo' ass.
Quote from: Tave on September 09, 2007, 01:02:12 PM
Those are the public's expectations, genius. When policemen break crimes and get away with it, that's bad public relations. That's something the public doesn't want to have happen.
I don't give a shit if you're not friendly with some clown getting a traffic ticket. But I bet you yourself practice positive relations with law-abiding members of society. Are you at least professional with the petty infractor? Do you treat the spousel abuser the same as the spouse? Are you warm and obliging to the old lady who comes in to report a theft? How about the mother and child involved in an auto accident, how do you treat them?
My guess is you treat the honest citizen fairly well, if curt.
No- I'm referring to them wanting us to do everything they say and all the other bs that goes with that- I guess I thought that's what you meant- and like I said before I and my guys treat everyone the same- everyone. And you wouldn't call me officer friendly if that's what your pionting at.
And I've never been one to toot my own "brain-power" horn- never claimed to be any smarter than your average pet- now when it comes to my training and experience that might be different because I'm pretty proud of both.
Recognition that cars and drivers have limits hardly undermines my argument that speed limits are unnecessary, counterproductive, costly and widely abused by enforcement because that very assumption is built into the reasoning behind engineering limits such as the 85th percentile for urban roadways and the newly-emerging 95th percentile on rural and interstate-grade roadways. JY
Rohan respnds:
QuoteDo you have a link to a valid source for this? Somehting like a government inquiry showing what you claim? [sic]
No, and I don?t have a link for, say, European History either. For you to seek a single, simple link to a field of inquiry as complicated as public policy vis-?-vis enforcement behavior is na?ve at best, delusional at worst but certainly dishonest.
Do we know that speed limits are unnecessary? Yes, because study after study and the entire body of statistics tell us that neither absolute levels nor changes in limits lead to any predictable and/or significant changes in key measures of vehicular safety. There is simply no connection. We also know from anecdotal evidence and empirical information that the unlimited portions of the autobahen, autostrada and autoroutes in Europe have slightly lower fatality rates than their American counterpart.
Do we know that speed limits are counterproductive and costly? Yes. Several groups have tried to estimate the cost of the NMSL (55/65), including you own Michigan State University. The cost to our economy of that little fiasco was over a trillion dollars, money and time better spent on research into causes and treatment for cancer, on efforts to prevent shoddy products from killing us or on educating our young folks.
Instead we spent it on using more enforcement and their cool electronic toys in a vain and counterproductive effort to force everybody to slow down. Another result was a plague of chickensh!t small villages creating their own ?police departments to cash in on the new boom in speeding citations. The repercussion for enforcement is that these citations are perceived as illegitimate with the attendant disrespect for all laws and all who enforce them. History once again shows that not all laws are equally valid. It was a mistake and a waste then and to continue it now is just as dumb.
Do we know that speed limits are widely abused by enforcement? Certainly. I?ve already outlined the citation for profit schemes of those villages that degrade legitimate enforcement efforts elsewhere. We also have a series of legitimate municipalities that openly tout traffic citations as a way to generate revenue: Washington, DC; Tulsa, OK; Phoenix, AZ; Aurora and Lakewood, CO; etc
But how often do we find that speeding stops are but a mere excuse to take a closer look at a car and its occupants, a very real degradation of the fourth amendment. Perhaps you and your brethren do not take the Constitution seriously but I and million like me do. Perhaps you feel that any tactic that gets drugs out of the public domain is legitimized by the end justifies the means mentality of politicians and police officers that the law is the law. Period. End of story. Perhaps you should reconsider the whole
illegal drugs phenomenon and make them all legal and free to addicts with treatment. Do you ever really think not only outside the box but outside your own realm of consciousness? Remember, the early bird gets the worm but the early worm gets eaten. The reality is there for you to see but you must remove your blinders and tell all your sycophant buddies to STFU.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/dist1/planning/TrafficStudies/2hj01!.pdf Note that this is the censored version of the report popularly known as the Parker Report, with changes forced by FHWA because they did not like the results reported in the original. The title is ?Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections,? and the simplest conclusion is that changes don?t matter. It doesn?t work but continues to be the near singular focus of traffic enforcement.
Nearly every driver on the planet acts in his own self interest and self preservation, despite continuing claims from enforcement that a majority of them are doing stupid, self-destructive things. The very few drivers who actually are self-destructive are not the real target of most enforcement effort. QuoteRight- like driving well over 100 mph on secondary roads- drag racing- drifting on public roads- doing wheelies on motorcycles at well over speedlimits- driving drunk- should I go on? Your point here is BS because we do target those very things or at the very least take action wehen found.
Hey, you forgot to put a school zone in there. Yep, those cops hiding in the bushes running instant-on radar are really looking for all those things, which are all very rare. According to the Texas DPS in a report to the federal Department of Justice regarding racial profiling practices and in which they were forced to reveal information that they had always contended was proprietary, speeding citations outnumbered
all other citations, including commercial trucking violations and secondary citations for no insurance and no seatbelt,
combined by more than two to one. This is but one agency in one state but is certainly indicative of the way that enforcement is conducted. Similarly, all those little villages with new police departments prey al most exclusively on speeders because it is common and it is easy to detect. It is also very lucrative for those villages but degrades the real professionals in enforcement.
Also note that while urban police departments perform routine patrol not focused on speeders, the DPSs and the little villages who make money from speed traps focus almost exclusively on speeding. Texas DPS does not perform routine patrols in neighborhoods and those little villages leave routine patrols and investigations to the county sheriffs.
In short, you don?t ?target? those things but will address them if you happen to come across them in your other duties.
Thus, it is you who has failed to incorporate some critical changes in conditions into your analysis because they undermine your argument.QuoteMore blah blah blah from the blah blah blah king. Some sort of proof?
Look for yourself. We have collapsible crash barriers, breakaway signage, rumble-strips on roadway edges, medians and center barriers, reflective paint, improved lighting, modifiable electronic signage, Bott's dots, multiple lanes and fewer intersections with cross-traffic, etc. We have radial-ply tires, shatterproof glass, disc brakes, independent suspension, more precise steering, seatbelts, multiple air bags, better lighting, etc.
We have all this improved technology aimed at the simple purpose of allowing us to go faster with improved safety, yet enforcement, insurance companies and the other anti-destination leaguers continue to ignore the reality in order to champion their blind obsession with speed control. Once again, it goes back to institutional behavior that has lost sight of its original mission (to improve traffic safety) but continues to dwell on something that no longer exists. Technology has allowed us to supersede the constraints that existed in the 1950s but people such as NHTSA, the National Safety Council, the insurance industry and the enforcement nation cannot and has not incorporated those critical changes into their thinking.
You should be able to see those changes that I outlined and synthesize them with your own reality.
No, the really sad truth is that the typical officer who writes the report of anything less than a fatality crash does not generally have any knowledge of crush factors, skid distances, adhesion coefficients, crumple zones of particular cars, etc. They write reports. Period. They check off boxes on a standardized form. Their ?investigation? is limited in scope and in depth.QuoteLink ? Can you proove this or is it more of your blatant lies?
Yep, it?s all just a big lie to confuse you. Think about your own department. Think how rarely an accident report is completed by an expert in crash reconstruction, supported by their calculations and/or the new PC programs? Then compare that with the reports completed, filed, distributed to the public and sent to NHTSA as required by law from officers who are hopelessly naive about accident causes and use excessive speed as the politically safe reason for the crash.
I don?t believe that for a minute. I?ve already done the math for you. And the feds paid for a good chunk of your time. And I also don?t believe that such campaigns are for anything more elegant or worthwhile than a good PR pitch to the public to make them think that you?re really doing something.QuoteReally? Did you come up with $33,801.60 dollars? Because that's what it cost to put guys out for 8 shifts at 8 hours at $25.15 X 3.5. We received exactly $$15,000 from the federal government. And considering our #1 request this last summer was for more traffic enforcement from our tax paying citizens - they got exactly what they wanted.
I outlined my assumptions in that particular post, still available for you to see. $25.15 is $52,312 a year, or some 63% above the $32,000 that had been indicated in other threads within these fora. The rest of your math is unclear.
TNO also asserts that more speed enforcement is the number one request from citizens. If that is truly the case, what is it that sets TNO and you apart from the rest of that nation where the desire is just to be left alone. I used to listen to a bunch of 80+ year-olds in Tulsa who complained right and left about the speed traps on Tulsa streets. ?Just let the traffic flow.?
Speed is a factor in everything having to do with vehicles because that is their purpose: to elevate the speed at which man can travel. Even according to your own data, speed too fast for conditions is but a paltry contributor to crashes. And, of course, even that is not what enforcement actually looks for, instead taking the low-hanging fruit of ?speeders,? who happen to exceed an arbitrary number.QuoteThat's because "speed too fast for conditions is just about only written when the roads are icy/snowy/drifted and regular speed enforcement is almost impossible.
In harsher terms, you just agreed with me that enforcement focus is on speed control rather than real crash prevention.
QuoteOh well- and frankly- I don't care if the public trusts me or not. That's not my job and it's never going to be- I'm paid to handle officers and the occasional report- period. Most officers I know also don't care either- why- it's not our job to care it's our job to enforce the law. Not write law- not change law- not argue law- not argue a laws merits- ENFORCEMENT.
I disagree because that view is too narrow and too shortsighted. Your job should be to improve the public safety, not just traffic but overall, within the confines of protecting civil liberties. That?s a tall order and a lot of your brethren are not equipped to even understand that, much less do it.
The other posters have already pounced on you for your attitude so I need not pile on further
QuoteAnd by the way- hows that 50+ years of experience in this field from the time you were 12 treatin ya?
It?s treating me very well. The ?field? that you reference is too vague. What I was writing about was the scientific application of public policy to a problem in order to actually mitigate the problem rather than to merely sustain institutions dependent upon the status quo. To learn that we should develop measures, rules and mechanisms that actually work and to use the feedback in that dynamic system to judge which are effective and which are not is a thing of beauty. You should actually try applying it to traffic safety sometime.
For your introductory course to public policy as applied to traffic safety:
www.motorists.org
www.nhtsa.gov See ?Traffic Safety Fact Sheets,? such as http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2005.PDF for the latest (2005). CAUTION: do not get lost in their verbiage. NHTSA is a virulently anti-speed organization but the data summarized does not support their own verbiage.
Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Texas Transportation Institute.
SENSE Society for Safety by Education, Not Speed Enforcement
Once again, I must :clap: @ James
We need to take away the power of pure speed enforcement for the sake of itself, and just focus on reckless driving. I truly believe road safety would not be negatively affected, while respect for LEO's on traffic duty would increase exponentially. Unforunately, that also means we have to fix our entire legal system, or we'd have thousands of Rudy Stanko cases.
Quote from: James Young on September 09, 2007, 02:16:33 PM
No, and I don?t have a link for, say, European History either. For you to seek a single, simple link to a field of inquiry as complicated as public policy vis-?-vis enforcement behavior is na?ve at best, delusional at worst but certainly dishonest.
I'm
shocked you can't prove your anti police BS.
QuoteThe cost to our economy of that little fiasco was over a trillion dollars, money and time better spent on research into causes and treatment for cancer, on efforts to prevent shoddy products from killing us or on educating our young folks.
1st- Link showing it cost over a trillion dollars- not saying it's not true I'ld jus tlike to see if you can prove it. And- yes let's throw more money at the education system because as we all know more money for teachers is the answer. :rolleyes:
Think again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
QuoteInstead we spent it on using more enforcement and their cool electronic toys in a vain and counterproductive effort to force everybody to slow down. Another result was a plague of chickensh!t small villages creating their own ?police departments to cash in on the new boom in speeding citations.
Do you have some proof that was the ONLY reason the pd's were created? Could it possibly be that maybe these small villages wanted police services? No- couldn't possibly be that. ???
QuoteBut how often do we find that speeding stops are but a mere excuse to take a closer look at a car and its occupants, a very real degradation of the fourth amendment. Perhaps you and your brethren do not take the Constitution seriously but I and million like me do. Perhaps you feel that any tactic that gets drugs out of the public domain is legitimized by the end justifies the means mentality of politicians and police officers that the law is the law. Period. End of story. Perhaps you should reconsider the whole illegal drugs phenomenon and make them all legal and free to addicts with treatment. Do you ever really think not only outside the box but outside your own realm of consciousness? Remember, the early bird gets the worm but the early worm gets eaten. The reality is there for you to see but you must remove your blinders and tell all your sycophant buddies to STFU.
Yeah- it's the police who are fanatics. Not guys like you. And by the way so your sitting in prison somewhere for a drug charge?
QuoteThink how rarely an accident report is completed by an expert in crash reconstruction, supported by their calculations and/or the new PC programs?
I'll answer this one honestly- every patrol deputy is sent to both AI-1 and AI-2 and before they go to them they aren't allowed to fill out anything more than car/deer and simple fender bender stuff and all of that is reviewed by a shift AI and then by a Sgt and then sent on to our Traffic Crash Division which is a fancy name for a deputy who is our most trained and highest level AI. But all those measure s are standard - it gives him a chance to review our info and determine if we've made good sound choices. But I have to admit we do take lots of crashes.
QuoteI outlined my assumptions in that particular post, still available for you to see. $25.15 is $52,312 a year, or some 63% above the $32,000 that had been indicated in other threads within these fora. The rest of your math is unclear.
Ithink you know hwo to do the math to get the number of hours and come up with the same number I did for all the hours we worked over the weekedn and how much it cost. I may not be able to explain it well but don't try to play that game. What is your point about the $32,000?
QuoteTNO also asserts that more speed enforcement is the number one request from citizens. If that is truly the case, what is it that sets TNO and you apart from the rest of that nation where the desire is just to be left alone. I used to listen to a bunch of 80+ year-olds in Tulsa who complained right and left about the speed traps on Tulsa streets. ?Just let the traffic flow.?
I don't know what TNO is and I really don't care- I just know what our citizens want and complain about more than anything else. And that's all 80+ year olds have to do is complain about things. :nono:
QuoteSpeed is a factor in everything having to do with vehicles because that is their purpose: to elevate the speed at which man can travel. Even according to your own data, speed too fast for conditions is but a paltry contributor to crashes. And, of course, even that is not what enforcement actually looks for, instead taking the low-hanging fruit of ?speeders,? who happen to exceed an arbitrary number.
What data is mine? I didn't present any data so don't call it mine.
QuoteIn harsher terms, you just agreed with me that enforcement focus is on speed control rather than real crash prevention.
no- I didn't- re-read it- I said that only really applies to those conditions.
QuoteI disagree because that view is too narrow and too shortsighted. Your job should be to improve the public safety, not just traffic but overall, within the confines of protecting civil liberties. That?s a tall order and a lot of your brethren are not equipped to even understand that, much less do it.
Right because most of the guys on my department aren't college educated and many of them aren't continuing their education at some of this states top colleges outside LE. :rolleyes: All cops are undereducated morons who just drive around looking for the easiest way out of work and couldn't possibly understand anything - which is why I don't personally know one single police officer who has ever been sued. <--That part is true. Cops are all just stupid. :rolleyes: And by the way- I
really care if
you disapprove of how I do my job. :rolleyes:
QuoteThe other posters have already pounced on you for your attitude so I need not pile on further
I really don't care if anyone likes my attitude or not- I never have and I never will I'm not hired to be popular I'm hired to do a job. And someone must like my attitude because I was made a sergeant and a few weeks after that I was put in co-charge of training and made Staff Sergeant. So you know- I really don't care and it seems I'm not asked to by my boss or his boss or his boss or her boss or his boss or his boss.
QuoteIt?s treating me very well. The ?field? that you reference is too vague. What I was writing about was the scientific application of public policy to a problem in order to actually mitigate the problem rather than to merely sustain institutions dependent upon the status quo.
Yeah because- you know- all 12 year olds are really concerned enought to make sure that speed limits get dropped. :huh:
You are a troll of the highest order and for that one thing I salute you. :rolleyes:
Quote
He is not a troll simply because he agrees with the law. :rolleyes:
Quothe Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.
"the nameless one" comes to a car enthusiast forum and preaches speedlimits. He uses the same arguments time and again, while dismissing anybody who disagrees as a speed-crazy lunatic that has no concern for anyone's safety. He is a troll.
I use the "same arguments time and again" because I belive in what I am saying.
So "car enthusiasts" now equates with "illegal speeder advocate" Do all "car enthusiasts" think they shouldn't have to drive at a reasonable speed limit while not endangering other people sharing the road? I think not. Saying so does not make one a troll.
Quote
My SC license was suspended (via a letter in the mail) several months after I had traded it in for my Maine license.
If they don't like it, they can kiss my a$$.
I hope that you've fixed that. If your state is anything like mine, even with a Maine license, if you return to SC you can be cited because your priviledge to drive in that state will remain suspended, even if you have an out of state license.
Quote from: James Young on September 07, 2007, 08:36:16 PM
the nameless one writes:
Yet, 85 mph is anywhere from 10 mph to 30 mph faster than present limits and that’s the very behavior that enforcement focuses on. You admit the speeds actually being driven are safe and then turn around and cite somebody for them. Kind of hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?
Actually, I concentrate my speeding efforts in residential neighborhoods, school zones, etc. So, no, I am not hypocritical.
QuoteNo, the really sad truth is that the typical officer who writes the report of anything less than a fatality crash does not generally have any knowledge of crush factors, skid distances, adhesion coefficients, crumple zones of particular cars, etc. They write reports. Period. They check off boxes on a standardized form. Their “investigation” is limited in scope and in depth.
There are a few qualified accident reconstructionists out there and they have some cool new tools with PC programs that help them with the calculations. Hats off to them.
The average accident doesn't require a reconstructionist to report on.
QuoteThat’s just chickensh!t. Then you wonder why the public disrespects you so much.
Just because YOU disrespect someone doesn't mean the general public does. Hate to break it to you, but law enforcement in general has the support of the public on a day-to-day basis.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 09, 2007, 03:24:34 PM
Just because YOU disrespect someone doesn't mean the general public does. Hate to break it to you, but law enforcement in general has the support of the public on a day-to-day basis.
Imagine that- and I don't even have to do anything to get it- like kiss anyones ass or be extra nice- all I have to do is my job- ENFORCE THE LAWS- including speeding- you know- the one that gets the most complaints than any other problem from citizens paying my wages and are supposedly my boss.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 09, 2007, 08:21:36 AM
The line deputy is the person the public is most likely to deal with.
Criminals don't trust cops, for good reason, but most law-abiding citizens do. Most traffic violators are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it's only a hard-core fringe that doesn't trust the police.
I think the problem most LEOs have is that they don't often deal with the better portions of the public; they deal most often with the scumbags. It's easy to suppose, after a while, that these people are representative of the public, and act accordingly. But that is a major mistake. Most people out there support the police, and as Catman has said correctly, the police depend upon public trust in a larger sense to do their job.
Actually, you deal with the law abiding people far more than you deal with crooks.
I'll say the same thing I told a ride-along last week: bad guys only make up 1 % of the public. The criminal element ruins it for everyone else. The officer has to remember that when they deal with the public, it might be their 1000th accident, 500th burglary or domestic argument....but its may be that citizens first interaction with the officer. You have to treat them accordingly and not leave them feeling like they were mistreated in any way. Even when dealing with that 1 %, its far easier to treat them respectfully, because it wont be the last time you deal with them in your career. Treat them wrong, and they can make the next 20 years of your career more difficult everytime you have to interact with them because they WILL remember how your interaction went.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 09, 2007, 03:12:32 PM
I use the "same arguments time and again" because I belive in what I am saying.
So "car enthusiasts" now equates with "illegal speeder advocate" Do all "car enthusiasts" think they shouldn't have to drive at a reasonable speed limit while not endangering other people sharing the road? I think not. Saying so does not make one a troll.
How do you drive a reasonable speed limit? That doesn't make any sense on a couple of different levels. One, you don't drive a speed limit, you drive a speed. Two, I can drive a perfectly safe and reasonable speed and still be breaking the speed limit.
Quote from: TBR on September 09, 2007, 03:40:17 PM
How do you drive a reasonable speed limit? That doesn't make any sense on a couple of different levels. One, you don't drive a speed limit, you drive a speed. Two, I can drive a perfectly safe and reasonable speed and still be breaking the speed limit.
Sorry, I misedited that when I was typing..driving "at" a reasonable speed limit was what I meant. this new program deletes the line you are typing on & if you aren't careful during your proofing you can miss that stuff been typed over.
You MAY be able to drive at a higher speed than what is posted....almost everyone who gets into an accident thought their speed was safe to drive at but found out otherwise. Hope that you wont be one such person. Theres a lot of people out there that may not be able to do the same sorts of speeds that you can but will try, with disasterous results
Quote from: dazzleman on September 08, 2007, 06:41:31 AM
Rohan, I think you're wrong in your attitude.
Much of the public is inclined to trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are dealing with criminals.
You seem to be lumping the criminals and public into one group hostile to the police. That is really not the case at all, but if you believe that and act accordingly, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
If there are reasonable traffic laws and reasonable enforcement tactics, most people will accept it without too much complaint if and when they do get tagged by one of the guys in blue. The problem is when the laws are perceived by a large number of people to be unreasonable, and 'gotcha' tactics are used to enforce them.
Some of the views expressed here are pretty doctrinaire and shouldn't be taken as an indication of the general public attitude. Still, you should re-examine your own attitude, because over the longer term, that attitude could be a danger to your career.
You know I kinda blew this post off too quickly earlier- I was kinda in the middle of something and was taking a break. I think I'm gonna come back to it.
I think when an officer gets into a fight and then uses his taser aon a 17 year old or so- in a school- and then gets dragged through the liberal anti police media- and the public reads the liberal trash rag and starts making comments online about how the police officer was rogue and used police abuse and even called for him to be killed- I tend to get a little anti people. When a Lansing man robbed a bank (if I remember right)at gun point and lead police on a footchase shoots at the cops and crawled under a porch- the police spend half an hour trying to get the man to come out peacefully- they send in the k-9 and he shoots and kills the dog and officers return fire killing - the 3 month media frenzy against the officers involved and their desire to see them fired - and worse - I start to not trust the people.
When a police officer shoots a man for swinging a large metal rake at his head and kills him- and the people demand that he gets prison time- I start to lose trust in people. When a police officer is sitting in his patrol car and a man pulls up to him like he is going to ask questions and shoots the officer in the face- I start to distrust people. When a police officer pulls up behind a car that is sitting on the side of the road apparently broken down and the driver gets out and kills him- I start to lose trust in people
When an officer is called to a home because a man hears noises outside his house- and the officer checks the area- then runs the guys name and finds out he hads a warrant for probation violation and tries to get to his pistol under his belt to shoot the officer because he doesn't want to spend the 10 days required on the warrant and then escapes to lead the officers on a 15 mile 120 mph chase- I start to lose trust in people.
My point is that I don't trust one single citizen- When I approach you I intend to kill you if you try to hurt me until you prove to me you are not a threat. Citizens will lie to get officers in trouble when nothing they have done was wrong. It happens every single day-
Quote from: the nameless one on September 09, 2007, 03:46:23 PM
Sorry, I misedited that when I was typing..driving "at" a reasonable speed limit was what I meant. this new program deletes the line you are typing on & if you aren't careful during your proofing you can miss that stuff been typed over.
You MAY be able to drive at a higher speed than what is posted....almost everyone who gets into an accident thought their speed was safe to drive at but found out otherwise. Hope that you wont be one such person. Theres a lot of people out there that may not be able to do the same sorts of speeds that you can but will try, with disasterous results
Following an arbitray number on a sign does not create some kind of magical force field that protects you from crashing. Everyone in every situation must rely on their own good judgement. The only logical reason for speedlimits to exist is as a legal tool to ease in prosecution. If there are drivers out there that must rely on a sign to tell them what speed is safe to drive at, they shouldn't be driving at all.
Quote from: NACar on September 09, 2007, 03:51:49 PM
Following an arbitray number on a sign does not create some kind of magical force field that protects you from crashing. Everyone in every situation must rely on their own good judgement. The only logical reason for speedlimits to exist is as a legal tool to ease in prosecution. If there are drivers out there that must rely on a sign to tell them what speed is safe to drive at, they shouldn't be driving at all.
Thats nothing more than an excuse on your part to allow yourself to drive at whatever speed you think you should be able to drive at, without restrictions.
Its far from "arbitrary". Most of the speed limits on the roads in my area are set for speeds I feel are quite in line with the construction of the road,the abilities of most vehicles, etc.
So you see no need for any limits at all? Thats what your post sounds like its saying.
Quote from: NACar on September 09, 2007, 02:33:27 PM
Once again, I must :clap: @ James
We need to take away the power of pure speed enforcement for the sake of itself, and just focus on reckless driving. I truly believe road safety would not be negatively affected, while respect for LEO's on traffic duty would increase exponentially. Unforunately, that also means we have to fix our entire legal system, or we'd have thousands of Rudy Stanko cases.
So how would you define reckless driving? How would set up the system of discipline? How would you deter your version of reckless driving?
Quote from: the nameless one on September 09, 2007, 04:11:39 PM
Thats nothing more than an excuse on your part to allow yourself to drive at whatever speed you think you should be able to drive at, without restrictions.
Its far from "arbitrary". Most of the speed limits on the roads in my area are set for speeds I feel are quite in line with the construction of the road,the abilities of most vehicles, etc.
So you see no need for any limits at all? Thats what your post sounds like its saying.
Don't forget the abilites of most drivers- which is shockingly low- more so for men than they will ever want to admit. Most drivers are too lazy to get any kind of driver training beyond the 10 minutes behind the wheel it took to get your license.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 03:48:10 PM
You know I kinda blew this post off too quickly earlier- I was kinda in the middle of something and was taking a break. I think I'm gonna come back to it.
I think when an officer gets into a fight and then uses his taser aon a 17 year old or so- in a school- and then gets dragged through the liberal anti police media- and the public reads the liberal trash rag and starts making comments online about how the police officer was rogue and used police abuse and even called for him to be killed- I tend to get a little anti people. When a Lansing man robbed a bank (if I remember right)at gun point and lead police on a footchase shoots at the cops and crawled under a porch- the police spend half an hour trying to get the man to come out peacefully- they send in the k-9 and he shoots and kills the dog and officers return fire killing - the 3 month media frenzy against the officers involved and their desire to see them fired - and worse - I start to not trust the people.
When a police officer shoots a man for swinging a large metal rake at his head and kills him- and the people demand that he gets prison time- I start to lose trust in people. When a police officer is sitting in his patrol car and a man pulls up to him like he is going to ask questions and shoots the officer in the face- I start to distrust people. When a police officer pulls up behind a car that is sitting on the side of the road apparently broken down and the driver gets out and kills him- I start to lose trust in people
When an officer is called to a home because a man hears noises outside his house- and the officer checks the area- then runs the guys name and finds out he hads a warrant for probation violation and tries to get to his pistol under his belt to shoot the officer because he doesn't want to spend the 10 days required on the warrant and then escapes to lead the officers on a 15 mile 120 mph chase- I start to lose trust in people.
My point is that I don't trust one single citizen- When I approach you I intend to kill you if you try to hurt me until you prove to me you are not a threat. Citizens will lie to get officers in trouble when nothing they have done was wrong. It happens every single day-
I completely understand your frustration.
The media though is not representative of society as a whole. Those people love to create a horrible problem for the police any time they must make life and death decisions, and they always seem to sympathize with the bad guys, at least in my perception.
But when cases go before juries, quite often the public sees things the officer's way, and exonerate the officers. That doesn't take away the misery the media and a vocal minority can inflict, but it does show that the public as a whole is not generally in sync with the sharks in the media.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 03:48:10 PM
My point is that I don't trust one single citizen- When I approach you I intend to kill you if you try to hurt me until you prove to me you are not a threat. Citizens will lie to get officers in trouble when nothing they have done was wrong. It happens every single day-
Don't be surprised if I feel the same way. And all the rest of the populace should as well. Cops should be treated as threats, the same as criminals.
What is this, some kind of totalitarian dictatorship?
Quote from: NACar on September 09, 2007, 07:31:05 PM
What is this, some kind of totalitarian dictatorship?
If the coppers had their way...
Quote from: Raza on September 09, 2007, 07:47:54 PM
If the coppers had their way...
Unless you need one. Then you can't appreciate law enforcement enough.
Quote from: Raza on September 09, 2007, 06:48:24 PM
Don't be surprised if I feel the same way. And all the rest of the populace should as well. Cops should be treated as threats, the same as criminals.
Bad officers are extremely rare. What he is describing is a sense of officer safety where officers don't get complacent, where anyone they interact with may be a possible threat to their safety. Doesn't mean they have to be rude, but they might very well be forceful, which may be taken as being rude by some peopel who don't know differently. I doubt that any of you will ever deal with one of the extremely rare bad officers that would justify you approaching officers in the manner you describe.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 10, 2007, 03:41:24 AM
Bad officers are extremely rare. What he is describing is a sense of officer safety where officers don't get complacent, where anyone they interact with may be a possible threat to their safety. Doesn't mean they have to be rude, but they might very well be forceful, which may be taken as being rude by some peopel who don't know differently. I doubt that any of you will ever deal with one of the extremely rare bad officers that would justify you approaching officers in the manner you describe.
I'd say, on percentage, the bad officers equal violent criminals. So, I feel justified already.
Besides, even without taking percentages into account, you're talking about reciprocal treatment. You deserve to be treated by the public the same way you treat the public.
Quote from: Raza on September 10, 2007, 11:55:38 AM
I'd say, on percentage, the bad officers equal violent criminals. So, I feel justified already.
Besides, even without taking percentages into account, you're talking about reciprocal treatment. You deserve to be treated by the public the same way you treat the public.
I'd say your numbers are off; the number of bad officers is far less than criminals.
I agree that you should treat people as they treat you; at the same time I've met people who have unreasonable expectations of how officers should be; they expect officers to be all warm and huggy, for instance. You'll never satisfy those extreme examples.
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 04:18:02 PM
Don't forget the abilites of most drivers- which is shockingly low- more so for men than they will ever want to admit. Most drivers are too lazy to get any kind of driver training beyond the 10 minutes behind the wheel it took to get your license.
But for those of us that have, we get treated as though we haven't.
I agree with Rohan on the point of public scrutiny. Well, to a point. Far too often, people are quick to lay guilt on the police without knowing all the facts or the policies that dictate their actions. On the other hand officers must learn how to avoid alienating the average citizen. I have found that the more a department works with their communities the better the support.
Quote from: Catman on September 10, 2007, 05:53:09 PM
I agree with Rohan on the point of public scrutiny. Well, to a point. Far too often, people are quick to lay guilt on the police without knowing all the facts or the policies that dictate their actions. On the other hand officers must learn how to avoid alienating the average citizen. I have found that the more a department works with their communities the better the support.
it's a tough job. Want a doughnut?
http://www.krispykreme.com/ (http://www.krispykreme.com/)
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg564976#msg564976 date=1189446938
I'd say, on percentage, the bad officers equal violent criminals. So, I feel justified already.
Besides, even without taking percentages into account, you're talking about reciprocal treatment. You deserve to be treated by the public the same way you treat the public.
So if you see an officer whose life is in danger, you'll be the first to back up your words by putting your life on the line to save his?
Quote from: dazzleman on September 10, 2007, 06:48:25 PM
So if you see an officer whose life is in danger, you'll be the first to back up your words by putting your life on the line to save his?
When you see someone spill in the supermarket, do you help the janitor clean it up?
Quote from: Raza on September 10, 2007, 07:11:11 PM
When you see someone spill in the supermarket, do you help the janitor clean it up?
Not a very apt simile since the consequences are so different.
Quote from: ChrisV on September 10, 2007, 01:11:32 PM
But for those of us that have, we get treated as though we haven't.
It has to be that way because if you are a trained driver, and you are driving at 80% of your ability (which is what a respected school will teach) and the rest of the drivers around you are driving at 80% of their ability, then it is you which is the dangerous one. Why? you ask? Because it is you who is creating the dangerous situations simply because you are driving faster than the others (generally), and making a situation where they will not be able to correct any improper actions they commit in relation to your more controlled speeds. Example~ you are traveling 25mph faster than the traffic. A much lesser trained person starts to merge into your lane. They do not have the training to deal with your closing speed, and may do anything from over-react to under-react. The fault was yours.
So, it because you are creating a dangerous situation, you must be treated the same as anyone else creating a similarly dangerous situation.
Quote from: Catman on September 10, 2007, 05:53:09 PM
I agree with Rohan on the point of public scrutiny. Well, to a point. Far too often, people are quick to lay guilt on the police without knowing all the facts or the policies that dictate their actions. On the other hand officers must learn how to avoid alienating the average citizen. I have found that the more a department works with their communities the better the support.
Most of you know my position on this and other similar topics. Rohan is a product of his teachings, mine. He learned his attitude from me. One of the first things I told him, and I remember it clearly, was, "You have to look out for you and your partner because none of these mother fuckers will.(pointing around a neighborhood to the houses) It is literally us against them." But understand the area we were working back in the day. The murder capital of America many years then.
While I think sometimes he took those lessons a little to much to heart, I applaud him that after 16-17 years he is still vigilant in both practice and lecture.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 10, 2007, 06:48:25 PM
So if you see an officer whose life is in danger, you'll be the first to back up your words by putting your life on the line to save his?
In Michigan, it is not only your civic duty, it is very much appreciated. Although, sometimes it is met with skepticism, once the facts that you are attempting to help become evident the officer is usually glad to have your help.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 10, 2007, 12:16:20 PM
I'd say your numbers are off; the number of bad officers is far less than criminals.
I agree that you should treat people as they treat you; at the same time I've met people who have unreasonable expectations of how officers should be; they expect officers to be all warm and huggy, for instance. You'll never satisfy those extreme examples.
Even if the percentages were the same for both police and civic polulations, the numbers would not even be close. There are only roughly 700,000 police in this country as opposed to what, 300,000,000 citizens? If both were 10%, bad officers would only number about 70,000. While 10% of the civilian populace would be 30,000,000 bad guys. Not even a close race.
Based on the numbers of incarcerated individuals or those under legal supervision...parole, probation, etc, the criminal element is around 1 %. I doubt that the "bad" officers approach even 1 % of the number of working officers you cite.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 11, 2007, 02:19:25 PM
Based on the numbers of incarcerated individuals or those under legal supervision...parole, probation, etc, the criminal element is around 1 %. I doubt that the "bad" officers approach even 1 % of the number of working officers you cite.
I was merely using a base-line number of 10% as an illustration of how the numbers wouldn't even be close. I do not believe that there are currently even 1,000 corrupt officers currently employed in this country. Unfortunately, I have nothing to back up my beliefs.
I do, however, believe that there are 30,000,000 criminals in this country. Incarcerated or otherwise.
Quote from: etypeJohn on September 11, 2007, 09:43:33 AM
Not a very apt simile since the consequences are so different.
The analogy stands. Someone could slip and break his or her neck.
And no. I wouldn't help an officer. They took a job where they would put their own life in risk on a daily basis. If they didn't want that job, they wouldn't have taken it. They could have done anything in the world. Sales, accounts, tending bar, but they chose a job where they could get a badge and a gun and have some power over people. They wouldn't have taken the job if they didn't want their lives in danger.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:04:02 PM
I was merely using a base-line number of 10% as an illustration of how the numbers wouldn't even be close. I do not believe that there are currently even 1,000 corrupt officers currently employed in this country. Unfortunately, I have nothing to back up my beliefs.
That's why I said percentage.
I consider all cops corrupt until they prove otherwise.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 01:47:24 PM
Most of you know my position on this and other similar topics. Rohan is a product of his teachings, mine. He learned his attitude from me. One of the first things I told him, and I remember it clearly, was, "You have to look out for you and your partner because none of these mother fuckers will.(pointing around a neighborhood to the houses) It is literally us against them." But understand the area we were working back in the day. The murder capital of America many years then.
While I think sometimes he took those lessons a little to much to heart, I applaud him that after 16-17 years he is still vigilant in both practice and lecture.
And you're surprised when I feel the same way?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg566155#msg566155 date=1189544683
That's why I said percentage.
Percentage of what? I used a percentage. :huh:
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:06:23 PM
And you're surprised when I feel the same way?
There is a difference. Most people will not come to the aid of a police officer in almost any situation. You can go to youtube and observe examples of this. Yet, you EXPECT police to come to your aid when someone shovels snow onto your side of the driveway. An officer will be fighting with someone on the side of the street and no-one will come to his aid. We don't trust you as a matter of survival, something someone who has never served in the military or law enforcement can possibly understand. It literally IS us against them.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:04:43 PM
I consider all cops corrupt until they prove otherwise.
Then you're an idiot.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:09:34 PM
There is a difference. Most people will not come to the aid of a police officer in almost any situation. You can go to youtube and observe examples of this. Yet, you EXPECT police to come to your aid when someone shovels snow onto your side of the driveway. An officer will be fighting with someone on the side of the street and no-one will come to his aid. We don't trust you as a matter of survival, something someone who has never served in the military or law enforcement can possibly understand. It literally IS us against them.
Because that's your
fucking job! Just like I don't help the supermarket janitor when someone spills something. It's not my job. It's his. It's like joining the military and complaining that you're the ones going to war when no one else has to.
I definitely understand the matter of survival however. That's why I don't trust your kind, Tony.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:11:47 PM
And a coward.
Go fuck yourself with that coward bullshit. You do your fucking job. Protect and serve, remember? That's not my job. You've got a gun and the law behind you when you use it, even if you gun down an unarmed man. I don't have a gun. And, if I do get involved, then I have to give a statement and go under scrutiny myself. It's utter
bullshit for you to
expect that a civilian do your job for you.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:10:53 PM
Then you're an idiot.
And you're a fucking cunt for treating all private citizens as criminals.
So I treat you like a criminal. You're the one with the gun, officer. I don't trust anyone who has authority just because they say so.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:06:59 PM
Percentage of what? I used a percentage. :huh:
Yeah, I never said the number of private citizens who are criminal are the same as cops. That's why I said percentage. But you compared gross numbers. Obviously there are fewer cops. That's why I stated it on a basis of percentage.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg566166#msg566166 date=1189545275
Go fuck yourself with that coward bullshit. You do your fucking job. Protect and serve, remember? That's not my job. You've got a gun and the law behind you when you use it, even if you gun down an unarmed man. I don't have a gun. And, if I do get involved, then I have to give a statement and go under scrutiny myself. It's utter bullshit for you to expect that a civilian do your job for you.
No, it is better to hide behind that cowardly line like so many before you. It is utter BS that you will not even undertake the most basic of civic duties. The cowards way out is to not get involved.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:16:00 PM
And you're a fucking cunt for treating all private citizens as criminals.
So I treat you like a criminal. You're the one with the gun, officer. I don't trust anyone who has authority just because they say so.
And you are a juvenile child.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:18:00 PM
And you are a juvenile child.
You're the old who starting calling me names. If I'm juvenile, what does that make you?
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:17:02 PM
No, it is better to hide behind that cowardly line like so many before you. It is utter BS that you will not even undertake the most basic of civic duties. The cowards way out is to not get involved.
Cops wouldn't be cops if it weren't for the danger. Now you want me to do your job for you?
It sounds like you're the coward.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:24:16 PM
Cops wouldn't be cops if it weren't for the danger. Now you want me to do your job for you?
It sounds like you're the coward.
Well, yes, I am a coward. After all, that is why I served in the Marine Corp. and was a police officer in one of the worst cities in America. Alas, I am undone by your witty intellect.
And every time I come into this forum, I become more and more certain that all you cops are one and the same.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:26:31 PM
And every time I come into this forum, I become more and more certain that all you cops are one and the same.
The saying is, "One in the same."
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
Well, yes, I am a coward. After all, that is why I served in the Marine Corp. and was a police officer in one of the worst cities in America. Alas, I am undone by your witty intellect.
Are you honestly telling me that you didn't become a Marine and then a cop because of the danger involved in the job? Don't try to convince me you did it because of some silly noble reason like "serving your country".
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:27:44 PM
Are you honestly telling me that you didn't become a Marine and then a cop because of the danger involved in the job? Don't try to convince me you did it because of some silly noble reason like "serving your country".
Why ask a question and then require certain answers, while disallowing others?
To be honest, I did join the Corp to serve my country. I chose this over a couple other nice job offers in the civillian world making far more than I did as an enlisted man. In case you do not remember, I was a college graduate and had a good career in college as an offensive lineman. I felt I had been given so much I wanted to give something back. It was also the reason I became a police officer. Believe it, chose not to, I really do not care. Most people who do those things really do want to give something back. Being that you are a 21 year old, who went to college likely on the liberal East Coast, I can not expect you to understand anything relative to civic duty, honor, or doing what is right~ not what feels good. Those are not exactly the trademark teachings of the liberal schools there.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:27:34 PM
The saying is, "One in the same."
The old expression ?they are one and the same? is now often mangled into the roughly phonetic equivalent ?one in the same.? The use of ?one? here to mean ?identical with each other? is familiar from phrases like ?Jane and John act as one.? They are one; they are the same.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/oneinsame.html
Please. Go write someone a ticket or something.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:28:36 PM
Why ask a question and then require certain answers, while disallowing others?
Because that answer is laughable. If you're the 1% that actually feels like that, then I'm truly sorry I've been so disrespectful. But chances are that I won't feel compelled to apologize.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:30:51 PM
Because that answer is laughable. If you're the 1% that actually feels like that, then I'm truly sorry I've been so disrespectful. But chances are that I won't feel compelled to apologize.
Quite the contrary, that answer in honorable and noble. Something I think you do not understand.
What a shock, a liberal who refuses to acknowledge when he is wrong. :rolleyes: What else is new? :huh:
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:37:16 PM
Quite the contrary, that answer in honorable and noble. Something I think you do not understand.
What a shock, a liberal who refuses to acknowledge when he is wrong. :rolleyes: What else is new? :huh:
Who said I'm a liberal? Is someone who doesn't want to be oppressed by a thuggish police force a liberal?
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:40:27 PM
Who said I'm a liberal? Is someone who doesn't want to be oppressed by a thuggish police force a liberal?
So now people who have sworn an oath to God to uphold and serve the law, and protect the innocent are thugs?
You are showing your true colors.
Are you saying you are NOT a liberal? Because if you are that answer is laughable.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:42:05 PM
So now people who have sworn an oath to God to uphold and serve the law, and protect the innocent are thugs?
You are showing your true colors.
Are you saying you are NOT a liberal? Because if you are that answer is laughable.
I'm not really your traditional liberal. Politically, I'm a libertarian. Yes, one of those, atheistic, anarchist, freedom loving Americans who don't feel the need for the government to control every move they make (which Republicans wish) nor do we want all the money we make to be taken from us (which the Democrats are happy to allow).
And what true colors would those be? I don't like cops? I'm an arrogant jerk who dislikes authority figures? I'm disrespectful and have a vile mouth? I never thought I kept any of that a secret.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:46:29 PM
I'm not really your traditional liberal. Politically, I'm a libertarian. Yes, one of those, atheistic, anarchist, freedom loving Americans who don't feel the need for the government to control every move they make (which Republicans wish) nor do we want all the money we make to be taken from us (which the Democrats are happy to allow).
And what true colors would those be? I don't like cops? I'm an arrogant jerk who dislikes authority figures? I'm disrespectful and have a vile mouth? I never thought I kept any of that a secret.
You at least got that right.
Libertarian? Now that truely is laughable! HA!
But, you are in
fact, a liberal. I called that spot on.
I would love to stay and chat while longer, Raza. But my wife is calling chow time.
Wow, this got really nasty.
For the record, Raza isn't a liberal, and I don't know if he's a a libertarian. I do know he's an asshole.
Now, before we just run with that, we have to realize that assholes serve a very necessary purpose; and in this case he may be getting some shit out that might otherwise be left unsaid.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 11, 2007, 03:55:28 PM
Wow, this got really nasty.
For the record, Raza isn't a liberal, and I don't know if he's a a libertarian. I do know he's an asshole.
Now, before we just run with that, we have to realize that assholes serve a very necessary purpose; and in this case he may be getting some shit out that might otherwise be left unsaid.
I'm definitely a libertarian. Registered and everything.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:58:24 PM
I'm definitely a libertarian. Registered and everything.
I suggest you read some more of what Jefferson had to say about the responsibilities that come with freedom then.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 11, 2007, 04:10:31 PM
I suggest you read some more of what Jefferson had to say about the responsibilities that come with freedom then.
I think I'm okay, really. I go by the Spiderman ethos.
:lol:
Quote from: rohan on September 09, 2007, 03:48:10 PM
You know I kinda blew this post off too quickly earlier- I was kinda in the middle of something and was taking a break. I think I'm gonna come back to it.
I think when an officer gets into a fight and then uses his taser aon a 17 year old or so- in a school- and then gets dragged through the liberal anti police media- and the public reads the liberal trash rag and starts making comments online about how the police officer was rogue and used police abuse and even called for him to be killed- I tend to get a little anti people. When a Lansing man robbed a bank (if I remember right)at gun point and lead police on a footchase shoots at the cops and crawled under a porch- the police spend half an hour trying to get the man to come out peacefully- they send in the k-9 and he shoots and kills the dog and officers return fire killing - the 3 month media frenzy against the officers involved and their desire to see them fired - and worse - I start to not trust the people.
When a police officer shoots a man for swinging a large metal rake at his head and kills him- and the people demand that he gets prison time- I start to lose trust in people. When a police officer is sitting in his patrol car and a man pulls up to him like he is going to ask questions and shoots the officer in the face- I start to distrust people. When a police officer pulls up behind a car that is sitting on the side of the road apparently broken down and the driver gets out and kills him- I start to lose trust in people
When an officer is called to a home because a man hears noises outside his house- and the officer checks the area- then runs the guys name and finds out he hads a warrant for probation violation and tries to get to his pistol under his belt to shoot the officer because he doesn't want to spend the 10 days required on the warrant and then escapes to lead the officers on a 15 mile 120 mph chase- I start to lose trust in people.
My point is that I don't trust one single citizen- When I approach you I intend to kill you if you try to hurt me until you prove to me you are not a threat. Citizens will lie to get officers in trouble when nothing they have done was wrong. It happens every single day-
I know we're not suppoesed to "bash" LEO's, but I just can't take this guy anymore.
You know what.... boo hoo hoo frickin hoo.... You my friend are exactly the kind of LEO that society DOES NOT NEED. It is NOT "us (cops) against them (citizens)".
We all have choices in life bub. It seems like you don't like yours. Maybe you need to take up a less stressful line of work. For your own good and everyone else's....
On Edit: Read thru the rest of the thread and saw that "Hounddog" claims to be your mentor. Now I understand everything.
PS- Bravo Raza. You are definitely more right than wrong on this, although the delivery could use a little work. Most cops aren't in it to "protect and serve". They are in it for the power and perks the job provides. I thought the recent changes in regards to physcological testing were designed to rectify that but in many departments nepotism and cronyism still reigns supreme.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 01:43:40 PM
It has to be that way because if you are a trained driver, and you are driving at 80% of your ability (which is what a respected school will teach) and the rest of the drivers around you are driving at 80% of their ability, then it is you which is the dangerous one. Why? you ask? Because it is you who is creating the dangerous situations simply because you are driving faster than the others (generally), and making a situation where they will not be able to correct any improper actions they commit in relation to your more controlled speeds. Example~ you are traveling 25mph faster than the traffic. A much lesser trained person starts to merge into your lane. They do not have the training to deal with your closing speed, and may do anything from over-react to under-react. The fault was yours.
So, it because you are creating a dangerous situation, you must be treated the same as anyone else creating a similarly dangerous situation.
This has to be the biggest case a flawed logic I have ever seen.
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:09:34 PM
We don't trust you as a matter of survival, something someone who has never served in the military or law enforcement can possibly understand.
I've never served in the military nor have I been in LE, and I can understand the idea of "having someone's back."
Quote from: hounddog on September 11, 2007, 03:04:02 PM
I was merely using a base-line number of 10% as an illustration of how the numbers wouldn't even be close. I do not believe that there are currently even 1,000 corrupt officers currently employed in this country. Unfortunately, I have nothing to back up my beliefs.
I do, however, believe that there are 30,000,000 criminals in this country. Incarcerated or otherwise.
The number of criminals is readily quantifiable if you use the criteria I stated. I don't know what definition of "criminal" or criteria you are using to reach a 30 million number.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 11, 2007, 05:39:20 PM
The number of criminals is readily quantifiable if you use the criteria I stated. I don't know what definition of "criminal" or criteria you are using to reach a 30 million number.
Speeding is a crime. 99% of all motorists ahve sped at one time or another. Therefore, approximately 150 million people in this country are criminals.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 11, 2007, 05:41:58 PM
Speeding is a crime. 99% of all motorists have sped at one time or another. Therefore, approximately 150 million people in this country are criminals.
Ah, no. A speeding offense, at least in my state, is not a crime. It is :
2. "Traffic infraction" means any offense defined as "traffic
infraction" by section one hundred fifty-five of the vehicle and traffic
law.
A 'crime" is defined as :
"6. "Crime" means a misdemeanor or a felony."
Source:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a5.html
Quote from: the nameless one on September 11, 2007, 06:01:03 PM
Ah, no. A speeding offense, at least in my state, is not a crime. It is :
2. "Traffic infraction" means any offense defined as "traffic
infraction" by section one hundred fifty-five of the vehicle and traffic
law.
A 'crime" is defined as :
"6. "Crime" means a misdemeanor or a felony."
Source:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a5.html
OK then...
Quote from: L. ed foote on September 11, 2007, 05:10:32 PM
I've never served in the military nor have I been in LE, and I can understand the idea of "having someone's back."
Growing up in the projects is more than the equivalent of military or law enforcement training, man.... :lol:
I find sometimes respected businessmen do crooked things and act without integrity. You don't say everyone is crooked. We have to have proof. In fact the law of the land is that a person is innocent until guilty. We should regard our police with the same respect. They are here to protect and serve, as well as protect the donut industry. Their jobs on the road are to enforce speed limits on the road and enforce DUI/DWI laws because speeding and drunk driving are without a doubt the two biggest factors in vehicular accidents. They do this to protect the citizens who drive these roads lawfully. It is for our benefit. They don't do it perfectly. But what to you want. Without men to enforce the law and without respect for the laws of the land then you would have anarchy. Can you imagine what the highways would be without them. Imagine if everybody drove 120mph in a school zone.
Quote from: sparkplug on September 11, 2007, 08:49:40 PM
Without men to enforce the law and without respect for the laws of the land then you would have anarchy. Can you imagine what the highways would be without them.
If you've driven for any length of time, you know that people travel at various speeds above the limit. Having enforcement won't change that.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:04:12 PM
The analogy stands.
Only if the spill can take an overt action to kill or injure you. Would you help a volunteer fire unit that was short handed rescue kids from a burning building?
And no. I wouldn't help an officer. They took a job where they would put their own life in risk on a daily basis. If they didn't want that job, they wouldn't have taken it. They could have done anything in the world. Sales, accounts, tending bar, but they chose a job where they could get a badge and a gun and have some power over people. They wouldn't have taken the job if they didn't want their lives in danger.
Apparently those who say it's a thankless job are correct after all. Maybe its a difference in generations and the values instilled in each. Given the circumstances where I could help an officer and that help was accepeted (many times the officer doesn't want or need a citizen's help) I would certainly do what I could to help.
Quote from: sparkplug on September 11, 2007, 08:49:40 PM
Can you imagine what the highways would be without them. Imagine if everybody drove 120mph in a school zone.
That clearly wouldn't happen if everyone knew cops were gone. People generally drive what is safe for their current conditions, and some writing on a metal sign generally isn't right 100% of the time.
Quote from: Catman on September 10, 2007, 05:53:09 PM
I agree with Rohan on the point of public scrutiny. Well, to a point. Far too often, people are quick to lay guilt on the police without knowing all the facts or the policies that dictate their actions. On the other hand officers must learn how to avoid alienating the average citizen. I have found that the more a department works with their communities the better the support.
What a rational post. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 11, 2007, 06:54:15 PM
Growing up in the projects is more than the equivalent of military or law enforcement training, man.... :lol:
Except that those in gangs will not do what is required to ensure your (as their partner) safety, including taking a round for their partner. They also are not willing to die trying to retrieve a downed comrade. Gang bangers run because they have no "code" which requires honor above all else.
Quote from: L. ed foote on September 11, 2007, 05:10:32 PM
I've never served in the military nor have I been in LE, and I can understand the idea of "having someone's back."
You can, because you seem someone with honor based on your many intelligent posts. And there are many here who share you qualities, however, there are some here who could not understand that conviction, let alone the principle of honor.
Quote from: dsred on September 11, 2007, 04:58:06 PM
This has to be the biggest case a flawed logic I have ever seen.
You are right. The driver who was speeding and was involved in a crash where the speed was a large cause of said crash, surely isn't more than 51% at fault. :rolleyes:
Quote from: dsred on September 11, 2007, 04:51:46 PM
I know we're not suppoesed to "bash" LEO's, but I just can't take this guy anymore.
You know what.... boo hoo hoo frickin hoo.... You my friend are exactly the kind of LEO that society DOES NOT NEED. It is NOT "us (cops) against them (citizens)".
We all have choices in life bub. It seems like you don't like yours. Maybe you need to take up a less stressful line of work. For your own good and everyone else's....
On Edit: Read thru the rest of the thread and saw that "Hounddog" claims to be your mentor. Now I understand everything.
PS- Bravo Raza. You are definitely more right than wrong on this, although the delivery could use a little work. Most cops aren't in it to "protect and serve". They are in it for the power and perks the job provides. I thought the recent changes in regards to physcological testing were designed to rectify that but in many departments nepotism and cronyism still reigns supreme.
Do you have any proof to support you claims? Rohan was simply llustrating that it appears to many officers that the society they are willing to die for does not support thier efforts. He was clearly using those examples to demonstrate as to why LEO's become disconnected with society.
If you do not like his, my, or any other LEO posts, please feel free not to read them.
Quote from: hounddog on September 12, 2007, 11:46:12 AM
You are right. The driver who was speeding and was involved in a crash surely isn't more than 51% at fault. :rolleyes:
Perhaps certain other parties should have signaled and looked before pulling into the evile speeder's right of way.
Quote from: NACar on September 12, 2007, 11:51:29 AM
Perhaps certain other parties should have signaled and looked before pulling into the evile speeder's right of way.
Please note I edited my post to be more specific.
Quote from: Champ on September 12, 2007, 07:14:07 AM
That clearly wouldn't happen if everyone knew cops were gone. People generally drive what is safe for their current conditions, and some writing on a metal sign generally isn't right 100% of the time.
What would stop them from driving 100 MPH in the school zone? Civilization might last a day or to without the police, but within a week you'd have anarchy. It wouldn't even be safe for you to be on the road at all,let alone drive 100 MPH in a school zone, because the carjackers would be preying on anyone who wasn't armed without repercussion. Those of you with fancier sports cars might as well kiss them all goodbye because someone going to stick a gun up your nostril and kick you out of the drivers seat. You'll be lucky if thats all they do to you.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 12, 2007, 02:23:36 PM
What would stop them from driving 100 MPH in the school zone? Civilization might last a day or to without the police, but within a week you'd have anarchy. It wouldn't even be safe for you to be on the road at all,let alone drive 100 MPH in a school zone, because the carjackers would be preying on anyone who wasn't armed without repercussion. Those of you with fancier sports cars might as well kiss them all goodbye because someone going to stick a gun up your nostril and kick you out of the drivers seat. You'll be lucky if thats all they do to you.
Hi this is my friend "off on a tangent," although it looks like you two have already met.
Quote from: hounddog on September 12, 2007, 11:44:33 AM
You can, because you seem someone with honor based on your many intelligent posts.
Check's in the mail! :lol:
That wasn't a tangent, that was an observation. A tangent would have taken several paragraphs.
Quote from: hounddog on September 12, 2007, 11:43:06 AM
Except that those in gangs will not do what is required to ensure your (as their partner) safety, including taking a round for their partner. They also are not willing to die trying to retrieve a downed comrade. Gang bangers run because they have no "code" which requires honor above all else.
All true, but Foote turned out to be a good guy despite having lived in a rough environment. That's a good base for much of what is required of LEOs.
Quote from: Champ on September 12, 2007, 07:14:07 AM
That clearly wouldn't happen if everyone knew cops were gone. People generally drive what is safe for their current conditions, and some writing on a metal sign generally isn't right 100% of the time.
I think you give some people too much credit. Enforcement will always be necessary.
Rohan writes:
QuoteI'm shocked you can't prove your anti police BS.
No more than you can prove that you?re doing god?s work as a LEO. I put out observations and evidence of particular behaviors, give explanations that also predict future behavior and synthesize all this with extant bodies of knowledge, some common, some esoteric.
If you want to believe that I?m just anti-police and not just anti-institutional behavior, then you can certainly enjoy that delusion. You won?t learn anything from it but you may enjoy it.
Quote1st- Link showing it cost over a trillion dollars- not saying it's not true I'ld jus tlike to see if you can prove it. And- yes let's throw more money at the education system because as we all know more money for teachers is the answer.
This is not the sort of thing that you?ll find with an Internet link. You?re going to have to go to some scholarly journals. You can find articles about this in the
The Southern Economic Journal, in
The American Economic Review, and
The International Journal of Finance and Economics.To be fair, there are lots of ?studies? out there, primarily from insurance companies and shock artists, that try to show that the reduced fatalities after NMSL was implemented actually saved money. It is not true, of course, since fatality rates fell before NMSL and then rose right afterwards. However, the large drop in absolute numbers of fatalities was because the amount of driving dropped off dramatically. But I digress.
If you believe that leaving kids ignorant is acceptable, you?re certainly entitled to that
opinion but the cost of that ignorance will be extremely high. Or perhaps you?re just a cranky old reactionary.
QuoteDo you have some proof that was the ONLY reason the pd's were created? Could it possibly be that maybe these small villages wanted police services? No- couldn't possibly be that. ???
No, it couldn?t be since they don?t perform police functions except traffic stops, leaving real LE functions to the county sheriffs. The traps in Ohio and Oklahoma have been forthcoming in their use of citations as the major source of revenue for those villages. Caney, Stringtown and Roland (all OK) were on the verge of bankruptcy when a bill sneaked through (literally in the wee hours of the morning and by self-admitted mistake) that allowed them to once again prey on motorists.
QuoteYeah- it's the police who are fanatics. Not guys like you. And by the way so your sitting in prison somewhere for a drug charge?
Some of them are. The news is replete with instances of cops voiding citations for sexual favors, lying in court testimony, planting evidence, etc. The problem is not the number who do it but the body of ?good cops? who let them get away with it. Why do you think that we have at least 200 cases where death penalties have been overturned due to actual innocence but a conviction occurred because of flawed procedure or false testimony?
I don?t use drugs. I?m not in prison (in fact, I?m at a five-star resort with the sun setting behind the mountains, sipping a nice glass of the chardonnay that we make).
However, you missed the critical part of my post: you must remove your blinders because they limit not only your sight but your vision, your perception, your ability to grow and your life. You keep making the same stupid mistakes and voicing the same unfounded opinions. For example, have you even considered that the
war on drugs does more harm than the drugs themselves. Of course you didn?t.
QuoteI'll answer this one honestly- every patrol deputy is sent to both AI-1 and AI-2 and before they go to them they aren't allowed to fill out anything more than car/deer and simple fender bender stuff and all of that is reviewed by a shift AI and then by a Sgt and then sent on to our Traffic Crash Division which is a fancy name for a deputy who is our most trained and highest level AI. But all those measure s are standard - it gives him a chance to review our info and determine if we've made good sound choices. But I have to admit we do take lots of crashes.
Whoa, break out that jargon again. The answer lies in thoughtful analysis, not jargon.
?TNO? is ?the nameless one,? deputy sheriff from Tompkins County, NY, and a long-time advocate of citizens speaking out for extra speed enforcement. It doesn?t seem to happen that way at all the other places with which I?m familiar ? and believe me, I ask about it -- so I?ve asked him to explain why TC is so anomalous but he can?t do it.
The point about the 80+ year-olds was that they?re
not complaining about lack of speed enforcement but too much of it.
QuoteWhat data is mine? I didn't present any data so don't call it mine.
NHTSA gets their data in large part from police reports. If you?ve ever completed an accident report, that went straight to NHTSA (by law for fatal and, I believe, injury crashes).
QuoteYeah because- you know- all 12 year olds are really concerned enought to make sure that speed limits get dropped.
That doesn?t even make sense. Even as a 12-year-old, I did not try to lower (or raise, which is probably what you meant) speed limits. At that point, what I did was a search of the literature. Later, in my thirties, I lobbied state legislators in OK, TX and CA; I wrote articles; I spoke in public forums about the damage of NMSL; I spoke truth to authority. My group and I were right and the authorities were wrong as is abundantly clear in retrospect. They lied and it cost America huge money and a huge shot to civil liberties, pioneering the nanny state and all its damages.
QuoteYou are a troll of the highest order and for that one thing I salute you.
Wow, thanks. That?s like being called ugly by a toad.
(http://www.knitemare.org/cats/serious_cat.jpg)
Quote from: James Young on September 12, 2007, 08:26:02 PM
No more than you can prove that you’re doing god’s work as a LEO.
You may have Randy confused with me. I am very religious, and I make no bones about it. As far as I know, Randy is only on the fringes of belief.
Quote from: hounddog on September 13, 2007, 01:03:28 PM
You may have Randy confused with me. I am very religious, and I make no bones about it. As far as I know, Randy is only on the fringes of belief.
It was a metaphor.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 12, 2007, 04:11:19 PM
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?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 13, 2007, 04:48:53 PM
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.
Law enforcement protect people from lawless speeders. You know people that Darwin's theories haven't killed off yet.
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.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 13, 2007, 10:47:40 PM
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.
Quote from: sparkplug on September 13, 2007, 11:16:29 PM
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.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 13, 2007, 10:47:40 PM
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.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 15, 2007, 01:57:18 PM
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.
QuoteSuch 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.
QuotePulling 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. . .] :nutty:
Quote from: James Young on September 15, 2007, 06:20:37 PM
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.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteWe'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.
QuoteHow 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteBetter 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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: James Young on September 16, 2007, 11:36:58 AM
Traffic enforcement is done for money first and foremost.
Proof?
Here let me save us all from your blah blah blah BS and just answer that one for you.
Quote from: James Young on September 09, 2007, 02:16:33 PM
No,
Quote from: rohan on September 16, 2007, 01:26:48 PM
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.
Quote from: James Young on September 16, 2007, 01:41:50 PM
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- :rolleyes:
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?
rohan writes:
QuoteI 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.
QuoteJust 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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: James Young on September 16, 2007, 02:34:58 PM
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?QuoteAssuming 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.
QuoteNo, 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.
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2007, 03:26:31 PM
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.
Quote from: rohan on September 16, 2007, 03:29:43 PM
Hmmm- so you didn't write this below?
Yes, I wrote those posts. What is your point?
Quote from: Catman on September 16, 2007, 06:58:30 PM
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.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
You sir, have earned my respect. The next round of beers can be billed to my card.
Quote from: James Young on September 16, 2007, 08:15:49 PM
Yes, I wrote those posts. What is your point?
I believe he made his point.
Quote from: Catman on September 16, 2007, 06:58:30 PM
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.
Quote from: hounddog on September 19, 2007, 10:33:39 AM
I believe he made his point.
No, he didn't; he's just confused.
Damn, Cat just gave Raza the smackdown! :mask:
Quote from: James Young on September 16, 2007, 11:36:58 AM
Only an allegation is on the ticket. That allegation may be true or it may be false.
Maybe in your world. Not here.
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteBy fighting every citation, citizens could assure that citations would cost much more money than they generate.
They already do.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteSince 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.
Quote from: Catman on September 16, 2007, 06:58:30 PM
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.
Quote from: hounddog on September 19, 2007, 10:34:47 AM
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 wrote
?Only an allegation is on the ticket. That allegation may be true or it may be false. ?
TNO responds:
QuoteMaybe 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.?
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteImproper 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.
Quote from: Catman on September 16, 2007, 06:58:30 PM
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.
Quote from: James Young on September 23, 2007, 11:12:42 PM
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.
QuoteJY 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.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 24, 2007, 06:32:25 PM
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.
No, in fact you don't know that. You merely assert it to be truth. Cops make errors all the time and occasionally just make stuff up.
QuoteIf 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.
No, I would not insist on that. What I would insist upon is that the merging driver be able to pick a spot as he starts down the ramp, well before a problem occurs. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be driving. Any driver getting to the end of the merge lane -- past the gore point -- with no safe place to put his vehicle is an idiot and should be barred from ever driving again.
Merging onto I-15 northbound from Rancho Calfifornia Road is typically at 75-80 mph, the prevailing speed of traffic that has already established the ROW. A few weeks ago, I had to adjust while on the ramp and hit traffic at 90 mph, sliding right in without incident. This is not rocket science. Every driver in America should be able to do it as second nature.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 24, 2007, 06:32:25 PMIf 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.
I can honestly say in the last 9 years of driving I've never failed to make a merge and had to slow down to much below the speed of traffic. Now when I get stuck behind people who do, on the same ramps I never have a problem with - I have to imagine it is operator error and not just some blue moon event where there is no where to merge. It also doesn't help their case when people travel one speed (not accelerating) down a merge ramp, then get to the end and look over their shoulder to check traffic.
Quote from: James Young on September 24, 2007, 08:30:00 PM
No, in fact you don't know that. You merely assert it to be truth. Cops make errors all the time and occasionally just make stuff up.
In fact IO DO know that. If I have the slightest doubt that I am correct, the person gets a pass.
QuoteNo, I would not insist on that. What I would insist upon is that the merging driver be able to pick a spot as he starts down the ramp, well before a problem occurs. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be driving. Any driver getting to the end of the merge lane -- past the gore point -- with no safe place to put his vehicle is an idiot and should be barred from ever driving again.
I've seen plenty of short ramps where theres very little time to be able to pick a spot in the flow of traffic to merge into. if the people in the driving lane don't move over, the person on the ramp gets stuck waiting for an opening. Apparently you want that person to just bull their way into the lane.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 25, 2007, 06:52:04 AM
In fact IO DO know that. If I have the slightest doubt that I am correct, the person gets a pass.
I've seen plenty of short ramps where theres very little time to be able to pick a spot in the flow of traffic to merge into. if the people in the driving lane don't move over, the person on the ramp gets stuck waiting for an opening. Apparently you want that person to just bull their way into the lane.
What really gets me are the ramps that have stop signs on them. I guess they could be there for a reason, such as poor visibility, but for ones that are permanent (i.e. not construction zones) why don't they do something about it? I mean, hell; they've been working on some roads out here for the past 8 years, they could certainly fix a ramp.
But people who can't merge also really get me angry. I have a merging technique. I hammer down, evaluate the situation, and slot into traffic. Just like James said; you pick a spot, and take it. Although there are people who speed up to try and get in front of you while you're merging; poopieheads.
Also, recently a member on this forum witnessed a cop pull over the wrong motorcyclist. Guess they are fallible after all...
Quote from: James Young on September 19, 2007, 12:03:52 PM
No, he didn't; he's just confused.
Sorry, he did, and made you look like a liar and bully in the process.
Quote from: Raza on September 25, 2007, 07:46:30 AM
Also, recently a member on this forum witnessed a cop pull over the wrong motorcyclist. Guess they are fallible after all...
What kind of non-sense is that? Of course police make
mistakes. Only a twit would not recognize that. :huh:
Quote from: hounddog on September 25, 2007, 12:31:55 PM
Sorry, he did, and made you look like a liar and bully in the process.
I disagree that James has been made to look like a liar or a bully.
Quote from: Psilos on September 25, 2007, 12:44:28 PM
I disagree that James has been made to look like a liar or a bully.
Well, that is your opinion. And, you have the right to it. Even if he did make statements that were in direct conflict with one another.
You wanna show me those statements?
Quote from: Psilos on September 25, 2007, 12:59:31 PM
You wanna show me those statements?
Try reading back a ways.
I did.
Quote from: hounddog on September 25, 2007, 12:34:04 PM
What kind of non-sense is that? Of course police make
mistakes. Only a twit would not recognize that. :huh:
Nameless claims he's infallible, so there's your answer.
Quote from: Raza on September 25, 2007, 07:46:30 AM
Also, recently a member on this forum witnessed a cop pull over the wrong motorcyclist. Guess they are fallible after all...
So the witnessed incident is fact? Cops do make mistakes but, speaking for myself, if I have even a shade of doubt I let them go. I was stopped in error back in 94 or so. The officer apologized and let me go. I would say that 99% of officer mistakes are related to errors in paperwork and not so much observation. I would expect mistakes to happen though as even highly educated doctors occasionally amputate the wrong head, etc. :nutty:
Shit, I hit 10,000 posts and didn't even notice! :cry:
No! Bring out the time machine...
hounddog writes:
QuoteSorry, [rohan] did, and made you look like a liar and bully in the process
hounddog writes to Psilos:
QuoteWell, that is your opinion. And, you have the right to it. Even if he [James Young] did make statements that were in direct conflict with one another.
Yet, neither you nor he can point those out contradictions. He posted quotes of me that were complementary rather than contradictory. I don?t mind being labeled as bully, but you can?t even show where I was wrong, much less posted a false assertion with intent to deceive.
Mr. Psilos, thank you for your support.
Quote from: Catman on September 25, 2007, 05:47:24 PM
So the witnessed incident is fact? Cops do make mistakes but, speaking for myself, if I have even a shade of doubt I let them go. I was stopped in error back in 94 or so. The officer apologized and let me go. I would say that 99% of officer mistakes are related to errors in paperwork and not so much observation. I would expect mistakes to happen though as even highly educated doctors occasionally amputate the wrong head, etc. :nutty:
I don't trust doctors either.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 25, 2007, 01:24:36 PM
Nameless claims he's infallible, so there's your answer.
I didn't say I was infallible. I said I know the ones getting tickets here did what the ticket says they did. They can claim they are innocent all they want. I know otherwise.
Quote from: the nameless one on September 27, 2007, 08:42:16 PM
I didn't say I was infallible. I said I know the ones getting tickets here did what the ticket says they did. They can claim they are innocent all they want. I know otherwise.
Why do you bother arguing with me in the first sentence just to prove my point in the second?
(http://www.lolcats.com/images/u/07/24/lolcatsdotcoms3kwbhne1tnopgui.jpg)
Quote from: James Young on September 26, 2007, 09:29:00 AM
hounddog writes:
hounddog writes to Psilos:
Yet, neither you nor he can point those out contradictions. He posted quotes of me that were complementary rather than contradictory. I don?t mind being labeled as bully, but you can?t even show where I was wrong, much less posted a false assertion with intent to deceive.
Mr. Psilos, thank you for your support.
No Mister, just Psilos. :ohyeah: You're welcome. I'm rather tired of the three bully cops around here insisting that they are the law and us mere citizens can't even begin to understand it.
Quote from: Psilos on September 28, 2007, 05:07:56 PM
No Mister, just Psilos. :ohyeah: You're welcome. I'm rather tired of the three bully cops around here insisting that they are the law and us mere citizens can't even begin to understand it.
I don't see any of them as bullies. Hounddog and Rohan have both fallen a little bit too hard for their own propoganda, but they mean well and rarely fall into the trap of saying things just to win arguments. Bing-Oh and Catman are both remarkably even handed. The obviously take their jobs seriously, but they should. Nameless is just funny.
A friend of mine just got a $300+ ticket for 80 in a 65 and an expired inspection sticker in his Caviler.
It sux because he just got a new truck (2000 F150 V6 5spd 2wd), and he's taking that shitty Cavalier to the scrapyard next week.
What he told me, is that he was actually going the same speed as the traffic around him (5-6 cars doing about 80), and they passed 5-6 cops parked in the median, and every one of those cars got pulled over! The intention there was obviously just to write as many tickets as possible.
:rage:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 28, 2007, 06:18:25 PM
I don't see any of them as bullies. Hounddog and Rohan have both fallen a little bit too hard for their own propoganda, but they mean well and rarely fall into the trap of saying things just to win arguments. Bing-Oh and Catman are both remarkably even handed. The obviously take their jobs seriously, but they should. Nameless is just funny.
I agree with that assessment. Bing-Oh and Cat are rather cool headed.
Unlike me, of course.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 28, 2007, 06:18:25 PM
I don't see any of them as bullies. Hounddog and Rohan have both fallen a little bit too hard for their own propoganda, but they mean well and rarely fall into the trap of saying things just to win arguments. Bing-Oh and Catman are both remarkably even handed. The obviously take their jobs seriously, but they should. Nameless is just funny.
Well, if we're gonna name names... I think Catman is good, and bing_oh hasn't been around long enough to make a really good assessment, but he's generally pretty good. Hounddog is the main bully, resorting to football lineman debate tactics, and Rohan just sort of follows him around. I don't even consider Nameless to be a cop.
Quote from: Psilos on September 28, 2007, 06:34:31 PM
Well, if we're gonna name names... I think Catman is good, and bing_oh hasn't been around long enough to make a really good assessment, but he's generally pretty good. Hounddog is the main bully, resorting to football lineman debate tactics, and Rohan just sort of follows him around. I don't even consider Nameless to be a cop.
For the record, I have no problem being named specifically regarding this. Also for the record, I used to be more even headed. I have alot of trouble with my temper, something that is new to me these days, and I find myself needing to apologize to people far more often because of it. My intention is not to be a bully. If I am being one, I will definately try to correct it. I am just really passionate about this general topic, and sometimes I display far too much vim and vigor. I will attempt to curtail some of that in the future.
As for Randy, I think to say he follows me around is a bit too harsh. I trained him and was his partner for a few years, so naturally he and I will agree in many areas. Beyond that, we are like brothers and spend lots of free time together. He friendship has been unconditional and has helped my family recover from some very bad times. He has, without any input from me other than the reference phone call, ascended to a high position within only a four year time at his new department. One that displays just how much he is valued as a police officer within that county. He is very experienced, and extremely knowledgable even though sometimes not well spoken. He is a blue~collar fella who is grateful to have been given the opportunities he has. In my own opinion, most would be lucky to have him as a friend.
Quote from: NACar on September 28, 2007, 06:26:00 PM
A friend of mine just got a $300+ ticket for 80 in a 65 and an expired inspection sticker in his Caviler.
It sux because he just got a new truck (2000 F150 V6 5spd 2wd), and he's taking that shitty Cavalier to the scrapyard next week.
What he told me, is that he was actually going the same speed as the traffic around him (5-6 cars doing about 80), and they passed 5-6 cops parked in the median, and every one of those cars got pulled over! The intention there was obviously just to write as many tickets as possible.
:rage:
What are you angry about Nick? They were speeding, at well over the limit. What do you suggest the police do?
If you think the speed limits are too low (as I do in many cases), that's a different issue. But it's hard to argue against enforcement of laws. If the laws shouldn't be enforced, then they should be repealed.
Are you for repeal of speed limits? I know some are, but I am not.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 10:44:08 AM
What are you angry about Nick? They were speeding, at well over the limit. What do you suggest the police do?
If you think the speed limits are too low (as I do in many cases), that's a different issue. But it's hard to argue against enforcement of laws. If the laws shouldn't be enforced, then they should be repealed.
Are you for repeal of speed limits? I know some are, but I am not.
The police were doing their jobs, and I can't hold that against them. But, the whole idea of what happened is just ridiculous.
I'm angry that they pulled over an entire group of traffic that was going the same speed, and was probably no less safe than if they had been traveling at or below the speed limit.
I should be happy that the crime rates are very low around here, but I'm angry that 5-6 cops had nothing better to do that sit on the side of the highway and point their radar guns at traffic. Is it really about "serving and protecting" at that point? I don't want my taxes paying for that kind of bullshittery.
I'm angry because the vast vast vast vast majority, let's make that 99.9%, of drivers could legally be issued a ticket nearly every time they drive. Any law that turns everybody into a lawbreaker is not a just law. Yet, nobody with any power can fight it, because safety has become directly associated with speed, and nobody wants to promote unsafety.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:01:45 AM
I'm angry because the vast vast vast vast majority, let's make that 99.9%, of drivers could legally be issued a ticket nearly every time they drive. Any law that turns everybody into a lawbreaker is not a just law. Yet, nobody with any power can fight it, because safety has become directly associated with speed, and nobody wants to promote unsafety.
Just because people do it does not make it right. Sorry to include this, but the Bible is pretty clear when it comes to "Obey man's laws." I know, we all speed including me when I drove. Unlike most, as an accident investigator and a police officer, I knew first hand the possible dangers of my speeding.
You (not you specifically, you meaning the general public) must understand that the laws of physics are also pretty clear when it comes to speed. When you multiply speed times mass you get 'unsafe' very quickly regardless of what safety measures are designed into modern cars. For instance, the damage to a car that hits a post at 5 mph is more than significantly less than if the car was going say 55mph. Included in that is the FACT that as you increase your speed, you are exponentially more likely to become injured in a that crash. In this case, mathematics and statistics do not lie. More physical and measurable evidence of that is we have more auto related fatalities than ever before. IF the modern measures of better roadside traffic crash reducers/barriers and the safety measures built into our cars were enough, we should see fatal and serious injury accidents fall dramatically in correlation. They have not.
It has been established by every single accident expert in the world that the faster you go, the more likely you are to be injured in a crash, and the more severe those injuries
should be. Those two things are absolutely synonimous with one another. What is not included, or eluded to, is that if you go faster the odds of you crashing go up. But, I do believe that there is evidence to support that depending on a number of variables to include; time of day, weather, road condition (condidtion of the pavement/concrete), level of traffic on the roadway, etc.
I think that when an officer issues a ticket for speed, most officers genuinely believe they are doing it for the greater good of society. We are
trying to make the roads safer for those around you, not nessecarily you.
If you live near a major Interstate and can scan the police frequencies, try listening for a while. The interstates produce an extremely large (and growing) number of cell phone calls to 911 for specific speed or reckless enforcement, often including license plate numbers and descriptions. I would guess, just a guess at that, that on average in the Detroit area for one day, most districts or jursdictions receive 20+ calls about bad driving on the freeways. Whatever the number really is, it is evidence that those calling for an elimination of speed restrictions are in the vast minority.
Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it right.
Slavery was once legal, remember?
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 11:17:46 AM
if you go faster the odds of you crashing go up.
I don't believe that. I bet there low-speed crashes are far more numerous than high-speed crashes. The number of fatal crashes, of course, increases with speed, but using that logic, nobody should move. Ever.
We could also pass a law that requires pedestrians to wear helmets. They would be safer, but nobody would do it.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:01:45 AM
The police were doing their jobs, and I can't hold that against them. But, the whole idea of what happened is just ridiculous.
I'm angry that they pulled over an entire group of traffic that was going the same speed, and was probably no less safe than if they had been traveling at or below the speed limit.
I should be happy that the crime rates are very low around here, but I'm angry that 5-6 cops had nothing better to do that sit on the side of the highway and point their radar guns at traffic. Is it really about "serving and protecting" at that point? I don't want my taxes paying for that kind of bullshittery.
I'm angry because the vast vast vast vast majority, let's make that 99.9%, of drivers could legally be issued a ticket nearly every time they drive. Any law that turns everybody into a lawbreaker is not a just law. Yet, nobody with any power can fight it, because safety has become directly associated with speed, and nobody wants to promote unsafety.
I understand your point, Nick, but I don't think it's worth wasting your time and energy getting angry about it.
Our speed laws are a product of the public's hypocrisy, as well as the ability of a vehement and organized minority to prevail over a less organized majority.
But don't make too much of the last point. Many are against raising speed limits beyond where they are, and many of these people violate the speed limits that they favor keeping in place.
I think we have to get past the idea that some people seem to have that there's this force that's oppressing us against our will with speed enforcement. The legislators that we have elected put these speed limits in place and maintain them.
I think we also have to get past the expectation of expecting the law to perfectly address every circumstance. Safe speeds are the product of a number of different circumstances -- weather, road conditions, traffic, driver ability, type of car, etc. The law can't possibly address all these factors, so there has to be a judgment made as to where to draw the line.
And we can't just say it's OK for everybody to make their own speed limit, though that is what many, including me, do. However, when people do that in defiance of the law, they must recognize that they could face legal punishment for it, and not become angry when it happens. The choice always exists to obey the law.
I personally think that in many cases, our speed limits are on the low side, but to be fair, any time I've been ticketed, I was going well in excess of the speed limit, so it's hard for me to argue that I was ticketed unfairly. I would prefer higher speed limits on some roads, coupled with stricter penalties for breaking them. I think that forcing more serious lawbreakers to give up their TIME to projects like community service, rather than just fining them, would be pretty effective for all but the most hard-core offenders.
In the grand scheme of things, the situation you describe with people being tagged for speeding is one of the problems out there that bother me the least. There are many worse things out there.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 10:38:12 AM
For the record, I have no problem being named specifically regarding this. Also for the record, I used to be more even headed. I have alot of trouble with my temper, something that is new to me these days, and I find myself needing to apologize to people far more often because of it. My intention is not to be a bully. If I am being one, I will definately try to correct it. I am just really passionate about this general topic, and sometimes I display far too much vim and vigor. I will attempt to curtail some of that in the future.
As for Randy, I think to say he follows me around is a bit too harsh. I trained him and was his partner for a few years, so naturally he and I will agree in many areas. Beyond that, we are like brothers and spend lots of free time together. He friendship has been unconditional and has helped my family recover from some very bad times. He has, without any input from me other than the reference phone call, ascended to a high position within only a four year time at his new department. One that displays just how much he is valued as a police officer within that county. He is very experienced, and extremely knowledgable even though sometimes not well spoken. He is a blue~collar fella who is grateful to have been given the opportunities he has. In my own opinion, most would be lucky to have him as a friend.
Tony, I think it's overkill to call you a 'bully.' You have the toughness I'd expect from a former football player and cop. Let's face it -- pansy asses don't deliver the ball to the end zone, and don't come out on top in the daily battle with the criminal element.
I do think you're inclined though to believe a little too much of your own propaganda. I think Randy goes further than you do in that respect, and has exhibited a potentially hazardous attitude of regarding the public as the enemy.
I can understand picking up that attitude if you work in certain types of communities, but I think it's a mindset that can make a police officer do foolish things, so it's good to take a step back from time to time and examine those attitudes.
I agree with you 100%, Dave, but in this case, the thing that got to me was that a whole line of traffic got ambushed. Who seriously advocates those kind of tactics?
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:31:44 AM
I agree with you 100%, Dave, but in this case, the thing that got to me was that a whole line of traffic got ambushed. Who seriously advocates those kind of tactics?
In Michigan, it is common to stop a geoup of cars. In fact, most traffic officers I know have stopped two or three cars at once.
It is clearly not a safe practice to do, and it is tactically unsound. But, sometimes it is good for the public to see they can not hide in a group. I am being honest when I say that I believe most officers write tickets with the right intentions of public safety. It is the administrators that corrupt that honorable desire with revenue in mind.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:31:44 AM
I agree with you 100%, Dave, but in this case, the thing that got to me was that a whole line of traffic got ambushed. Who seriously advocates those kind of tactics?
Why should that bother you if they were all going 15+ mph over the speed limit?
I don't see what difference it makes how many people were pulled over, as long as the were all breaking the law.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 11:37:18 AM
In Michigan, it is common to stop a geoup of cars. In fact, most traffic officers I know have stopped two or three cars at once.
It is clearly not a safe practice to do, and it is tactically unsound. But, sometimes it is good for the public to see they can not hide in a group. I am being honest when I say that I believe most officers write tickets with the right intentions of public safety. It is the administrators that corrupt that honorable desire with revenue in mind.
Interesting point, Tony. I've generally found that I can hide in a group. If the people around me are doing around the same speed I am, I find that my chance of being ticketed is virtually nil. I've even passed cops at fairly high speed in a large group of cars, and I've never gotten busted under those circumstances.
I applaud the police when they show they can take on a larger group of lawbreakers, whether it be speeders or people engaged in more serious crimes. The idea that you can get away with something if a lot of other people are doing it too can be a dangerous one for society.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:29:36 AM
Tony, I think it's overkill to call you a 'bully.' You have the toughness I'd expect from a former football player and cop. Let's face it -- pansy asses don't deliver the ball to the end zone, and don't come out on top in the daily battle with the criminal element.
I do think you're inclined though to believe a little too much of your own propaganda. I think Randy goes further than you do in that respect, and has exhibited a potentially hazardous attitude of regarding the public as the enemy.
I can understand picking up that attitude if you work in certain types of communities, but I think it's a mindset that can make a police officer do foolish things, so it's good to take a step back from time to time and examine those attitudes.
Thaks, Dave. I know I come across too strong on occasion. I am not proud of that, I used to be a much better debater. Now emotion seems to run my ship, something I am deeply ashamed of.
Randy takes his job very seriously. Not anymore than any others here, but understand from seeing first hand what can happen to officers when they let their guard down. We have both lost very good friends to people who were supposed to be "harmless." I taught him to be untrusting. But, Randy is now in charge along with another sgt. of his departments training programs. He buys into what he is selling, plain and simple. And, he has to for his guys to buy into it as well. If he fails in his job, someone can die. He takes that responsibility very seriously. It just comes across very stiff because of what that responsibility means to him.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:37:36 AM
Why should that bother you if they were all going 15+ mph over the speed limit?
I don't see what difference it makes how many people were pulled over, as long as the were all breaking the law.
It bothers me because it's bullshit! :lol:
Quote from: dsred on September 29, 2007, 11:23:51 AM
You ain't nothin' but a hounddog,
Cryin' all the time.
You ain't nothin' but a hounddog,
Cryin' all the time.
You ain't ever caught a rabbit
You ain't no freind of mine...
I love that song. It is one of two reasons for my 'name.' Thanks for brining that up.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:42:23 AM
It bothers me because it's bullshit! :lol:
That is your right to think that.
But, you are in the minority here. Even in the generous confines of this forum where others are generally enthusiastic about fast driving. Honestly, and without trying to be difficult, that should tell you something.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 11:42:14 AM
Thaks, Dave. I know I come across too strong on occasion. I am not proud of that, I used to be a much better debater. Now emotion seems to run my ship, something I am deeply ashamed of.
Randy takes his job very seriously. Not anymore than any others here, but understnad from seeing first hand what can happen to officers when they let their guard down. We have both lost very good friends to people who were supposed to be "harmless." I taught him to be untrusting. But, Randy is now in charge along with another sgt. of his departments training programs. He buys into what he is selling, plain and simple. And, he has to for his guys to buy into it as well. If he fails in his job, someone can die. He takes that responsibility very seriously. It just comes across very stiff because of what that responsibility means to him.
There has to be a balance I think. I don't suggest officers be trusting of people without first verifying that they are in fact harmless. I always support the police when they use their weapons against people who could credibly have been viewed a threat. So I don't favor forcing the police to be overly trusting.
But there is a difference between not letting down your guard, and regarding the public in general as an enemy. I think if an officer's mindset is the latter, it will ultimately hamper his job performance.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 11:46:08 AM
That is your right to think that.
But, you are in the minority here. Even in the generous confines of this forum where others are generally enthusiastic about fast driving. Honestly, and without trying to be difficult, that should tell you something.
I'm in the minority here because this thread is where all the cops are! :tounge:
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:42:23 AM
It bothers me because it's bullshit! :lol:
On the contrary, I think that if a whole group of cars is traveling well in excess of the speed limit, it's a lot more fair to ticket them all than to pick one poor hapless guy and nail him.
Besides, there's strength in numbers. I always felt a lot better about getting busted if a lot of people were in the same boat, rather than if I were singled out. :rastaman:
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:48:17 AM
I'm in the minority here because this thread is where all the cops are! :tounge:
How many tickets have you gotten in your years of driving, Nick?
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:48:57 AM
How many tickets have you gotten in your years of driving, Nick?
Four, I think, all for speeding. I admit, I may have deserved a couple of them because I was in/near residential areas, but the others were CRAP! :rage:
It's been over two-years now since I've gotten one...
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:46:12 AM
There has to be a balance I think. I don't suggest officers be trusting of people without first verifying that they are in fact harmless. I always support the police when they use their weapons against people who could credibly have been viewed a threat. So I don't favor forcing the police to be overly trusting.
But there is a difference between not letting down your guard, and regarding the public in general as an enemy. I think if an officer's mindset is the latter, it will ultimately hamper his job performance.
No disagreement. I am merely attempting to explain Randy and his 'position.' I would go so far as to say, "Blame me for his attitude." :lol:
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:48:17 AM
I'm in the minority here because this thread is where all the cops are! :tounge:
Nicely put.
:evildude: :lol:
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 11:52:23 AM
Four, I think, all for speeding. I admit, I may have deserved a couple of them because I was in/near residential areas, but the others were CRAP! :rage:
It's been over two-years now since I've gotten one...
You've been wronged!!!!!!
Fight the power!!!!!!! :lol:
Honestly, thinking that way will get you nowhere. If getting a ticket bothers you so much, don't speed.
I choose to speed, but then it doesn't really bother me to get a ticket, and it's been 8 years since my last one (that's what silver hair will do for you..... :lol:)
When you've gotten pulled over, was it in a group, or just you? As I said earlier, any time I've been in any sort of trouble, I always found it comforting to be part of a group rather than by myself. I remember the last time I went to court, how relieved I was to see a long line of people in the same boat. I had been to court before when there was practically nobody there, and I hated that. I guess that attitude that I have goes back to my high school days.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:41:55 AM
Interesting point, Tony. I've generally found that I can hide in a group. If the people around me are doing around the same speed I am, I find that my chance of being ticketed is virtually nil. I've even passed cops at fairly high speed in a large group of cars, and I've never gotten busted under those circumstances.
I applaud the police when they show they can take on a larger group of lawbreakers, whether it be speeders or people engaged in more serious crimes. The idea that you can get away with something if a lot of other people are doing it too can be a dangerous one for society.
Here, at least we used to, we had a tactic called "Wolf Pack." One officer would set up a radar, laser, airplane timed section of the freeway. Somewhere close by several patrol cars (as many as 5-15 or so) would set up and wait for the first officer running the speed maesurement to call out cars and colors and speeds and such. The officers would then stay in line to get the next one. If there happened to be a group they would take off as a group and pick them off one by one until either they had them all or they ran out of cops.
It is good fun, and it is effective in letting people know that area is targeted. Like any business, word of mouth is very important to our efforts. If people are telling all of their co-workers when they get to the office what they saw, if we can keep just one accident from occuring because of this, we have done our job. We usually stayed in areas that had high crashes, or numerous complaints, or construction areas, etc. We usually did not stay long, maybe a half an hour to an hour.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 11:59:12 AM
Here, at least we used to, we had a tactic called "Wolf Pack." One officer would set up a radar, laser, airplane timed section of the freeway. Somewhere close by several patrol cars (as many as 5-15 or so) would set up and wait for the first officer running the speed maesurement to call out cars and colors and speeds and such. The officers would then stay in line to get the next one. If there happened to be a group they would take off as a group and pick them off one by one until either they had them all or they ran out of cops.
It is good fun, and it is effective in letting people know that area is targeted. We usually stayed in areas that had high crashes, or numerous complaints, or construction areas, etc. We usually did not stay long, maybe a half an hour to an hour.
I've witnessed New York State Police doing the very same thing a few times.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:55:28 AM
You've been wronged!!!!!!
Fight the power!!!!!!! :lol:
Honestly, thinking that way will get you nowhere. If getting a ticket bothers you so much, don't speed.
I choose to speed, but then it doesn't really bother me to get a ticket, and it's been 8 years since my last one (that's what silver hair will do for you..... :lol:)
When you've gotten pulled over, was it in a group, or just you? As I said earlier, any time I've been in any sort of trouble, I always found it comforting to be part of a group rather than by myself. I remember the last time I went to court, how relieved I was to see a long line of people in the same boat. I had been to court before when there was practically nobody there, and I hated that. I guess that attitude that I have goes back to my high school days.
If the cost of a ticket was relative to my current income (ZERO), I would be fine.
When and if I ever have more money that I know what to do with, tickets will become merely a nuisance, like a housefly. I will squash them! :lol:
Dave, you're such an authority whore. Never once think that the law shouldn't be in place, just because it is, you accept it.
If the whole country were like you, we'd still be a colony.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 12:04:31 PM
Dave, you're such an authority whore. Never once think that the law shouldn't be in place, just because it is, you accept it.
If the whole country were like you, we'd still be a colony.
Patriot was one TV last ngiht.
Braveheart in the 1700s!!!!!!
Quote from: The Pirate on September 29, 2007, 12:03:44 PM
I've witnessed New York State Police doing the very same thing a few times.
Hah, I bet you've more than 'witnessed' that Adam. :lol:
You've gotten in a lot of trouble for a guy who looks so innocent.... :rockon:
I still think we need to pass a law that requires pedestrians to wear helmets at all times.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg586406#msg586406 date=1191089071
Dave, you're such an authority whore. Never once think that the law shouldn't be in place, just because it is, you accept it.
If the whole country were like you, we'd still be a colony.
That's not the case at all.
I just think that if a law is so objectionable, we should fight to change it, rather than just break it and then bitch about getting busted on a forum.
In my hierarchy of things that really bother me, I put speed enforcement pretty low in the pecking order. Just as a small example, I find feminazi control of the family courts much more disturbing, even though it has yet to affect me directly.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 11:29:36 AM
Tony, I think it's overkill to call you a 'bully.' You have the toughness I'd expect from a former football player and cop. Let's face it -- pansy asses don't deliver the ball to the end zone, and don't come out on top in the daily battle with the criminal element.
I do think you're inclined though to believe a little too much of your own propaganda. I think Randy goes further than you do in that respect, and has exhibited a potentially hazardous attitude of regarding the public as the enemy.
I can understand picking up that attitude if you work in certain types of communities, but I think it's a mindset that can make a police officer do foolish things, so it's good to take a step back from time to time and examine those attitudes.
The more I think about this, the more I realize that with Randy, police work was his salvation. Police officers have been his only family for most of his adolescent life and all of his adult life. It only stands to reason that he would feel so strongly about protecting those he cares most about.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:07:38 PM
That's not the case at all.
I just think that if a law is so objectionable, we should fight to change it, rather than just break it and then bitch about getting busted on a forum.
In my hierarchy of things that really bother me, I put speed enforcement pretty low in the pecking order. Just as a small example, I find feminazi control of the family courts much more disturbing, even though it has yet to affect me directly.
There are many laws that bother me more than speed limits, or traffic laws in general... but this being a car forum and all, that's just what I happen to bitch about most of the time.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:07:47 PM
The more I think about this, the more I realize that with Randy, police work was his salvation. Police officers have been his only family for most of his adolescent life and all of his adult life. It only stands to reason that he would feel so strongly about protecting those he cares most about.
The danger is in thinking that the job of being an LEO begins and ends with protecting yourself and your fellow officers. I can see that it would be very easy to fall into this mentality, in the face of a sometimes hostile public and a dysfunctional legal system, as we have. But it can still be dangerous to an officer's career to take that thinking too far.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:04:16 PM
If the cost of a ticket was relative to my current income (ZERO), I would be fine.
When and if I ever have more money that I know what to do with, tickets will become merely a nuisance, like a housefly. I will squash them! :lol:
There is a saying that was around when I started; If you can't afford the ticket, you can't afford to speed.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:09:34 PM
There are many laws that bother me more than speed limits, or traffic laws in general... but this being a car forum and all, that's just what I happen to bitch about most of the time.
Think about the Duke students falsely charged with rape with all the national publicity that went this that. That is the result of the power we have given to feminazis and racial arsonists.
So which do you find more disturbing -- the possibility of getting a speeding ticket that is technically legitimate, or facing something like that?
Situations like the Duke one make me far more angry than getting popped for speeding when I'm doing 20+ mph over the speed limit.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:10:27 PM
The danger is in thinking that the job of being an LEO begins and ends with protecting yourself and your fellow officers. I can see that it would be very easy to fall into this mentality, in the face of a sometimes hostile public and a dysfunctional legal system, as we have. But it can still be dangerous to an officer's career to take that thinking too far.
Well, actually, it does begine and end with that. WE are more important than anyone else, we have to be but only because of survival instincts. Our #1 job as
patrol officers is to protect each other before anything else.
Sorry, I posted that accidentally before I was done.
But, we fully understand the dangers of our job. We fully understand that sometimes the wolf kills the sheepdog. It is just part of the game.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:10:47 PM
There is a saying that was around when I started; If you can't afford the ticket, you can't afford to speed.
I know that saying, and I don't even agree with the concept that rich people should pay higher fines than poor people... I'm just saying that, because I'm poor, it pisses me off when something that I don't feel like I deserved can completely throw off my finances and force me to create food from merely flour, water and cheese powder for several days before my next paycheck (true story).
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:13:09 PM
Well, actually, it does begine and end with that. WE are more important than anyone else, we have to be but only because of survival instincts. Our #1 job as patrol officers is to protect each other before anything else.
There's where I don't agree with you.
If your only job were to protect yourself, there'd be no reason for a police force at all. You've apparently fallen into the thinking exhibited by the teachers' unions, that the schools are run to give them jobs rather than to educate.
Protecting each other is certain an important part of the LEO job, but that has to fall within the context of protecting the law abiding public (who pay the LEO salaries).
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:15:01 PM
There's where I don't agree with you.
If your only job were to protect yourself, there'd be no reason for a police force at all. You've apparently fallen into the thinking exhibited by the teachers' unions, that the schools are run to give them jobs rather than to educate.
Protecting each other is certain an important part of the LEO job, but that has to fall within the context of protecting the law abiding public (who pay the LEO salaries).
I accidentally posted that before I finished, there is a little more.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:12:38 PM
Think about the Duke students falsely charged with rape with all the national publicity that went this that. That is the result of the power we have given to feminazis and racial arsonists.
So which do you find more disturbing -- the possibility of getting a speeding ticket that is technically legitimate, or facing something like that?
Situations like the Duke one make me far more angry than getting popped for speeding when I'm doing 20+ mph over the speed limit.
I was agreeing with your point. I was just saying I bitch about traffic laws here because this is a traffic law forum.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:14:46 PM
I know that saying, and I don't even agree with the concept that rich people should pay higher fines than poor people... I'm just saying that, because I'm poor, it pisses me off when something that I don't feel like I deserved can completely throw off my finances and force me to create food from merely flour, water and cheese powder for several days before my next paycheck (true story).
That's how you know punishment is effective -- when it hurts in some way.
I have always enjoyed pushing limits and even on some level getting busted, so long as the penalty was fairly small. I've always been emboldened by punishment that didn't hurt (and I've gotten a fair amount of that).
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:16:53 PM
I was agreeing with your point. I was just saying I bitch about traffic laws here because this is a traffic law forum.
:ohyeah:
I think it's good to keep these things in perspective.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:16:20 PM
I accidentally posted that before I finished, there is a little more.
Let's hear the rest of it, man.... :ohyeah:
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:17:30 PM
That's how you know punishment is effective -- when it hurts in some way.
Yup. That's why I didn't start speeding again until my next paycheck. :lol:
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:16:53 PM
I was agreeing with your point. I was just saying I bitch about traffic laws here because this is a traffic law forum.
W
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:14:46 PM
I know that saying, and I don't even agree with the concept that rich people should pay higher fines than poor people... I'm just saying that, because I'm poor, it pisses me off when something that I don't feel like I deserved can completely throw off my finances and force me to create food from merely flour, water and cheese powder for several days before my next paycheck (true story).
Our train tracks run parallel but almost never touch. Where we come together is how traffic violations are enforced. It is my absolute belief that fines should be set accordingly to how much a person makes. It is the only way to make it fair and balanced. If you make $5,000 a year, your fines at $25 would have exactly the same impact on you as compared to $150. Only, they would seem more reasonable to you, where as a man making $350,000 should pay something like $2,500 for a similar infraction.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:19:07 PM
Let's hear the rest of it, man.... :ohyeah:
I added it to that post.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:19:38 PM
Yup. That's why I didn't start speeding again until my next paycheck. :lol:
I like the way you think..... :lol:
When I was in high school, I followed the 'decent interval' theory on getting in trouble. If my friends wanted to cut out of a Friday afternoon class to go drinking or something like that, I wouldn't do it if I'd been busted for it in the last couple of weeks. But once that 'decent interval' was over, I was game again.... :lol:
I wonder, did Randy imagine his post trying to proove a point about revenue gain would turn into such a good topic debate spanning such broad ground?
Getting aweful tired guys. Plus, my Spartans are on in an hour. Have a great Saturday.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:20:01 PM
WOur train tracks run parallel but almost never touch. Where we come together is how traffic violations are enforced. It is my absolute belief that fines should be set accordingly to how much a person makes. It is the only way to make it fair and balanced. If you make $5,000 a year, your fines at $25 would have exactly the same impact on you as compared to $150. Only, they would seem more reasonable to you, where as a man making $350,000 should pay something like $2,500 for a similar infraction.
Finland actually has a system like that, where traffic fines are tied to income.
It would probably be a nightmare to implement, but it does make some sense.
In reality, though, there's so much variation among people as to what it will take to change their behavior. Different people respond to different types and levels of punishment. What doesn't bother some people is very painful to others. So even with a graduated system of fines based upon income, the effect is not going to be uniform across the spectrum.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:20:01 PM
WOur train tracks run parallel but almost never touch. Where we come together is how traffic violations are enforced. It is my absolute belief that fines should be set accordingly to how much a person makes. It is the only way to make it fair and balanced. If you make $5,000 a year, your fines at $25 would have exactly the same impact on you as compared to $150. Only, they would seem more reasonable to you, where as a man making $350,000 should pay something like $2,500 for a similar infraction.
So if i was caught speeding i wouldn't get a ticket? :lol:
Quote from: Raghavan on September 29, 2007, 12:26:49 PM
So if i was caught speeding i wouldn't get a ticket? :lol:
You would get a ticket for $.01, but I recommend that you go to court and contest it. :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:25:48 PM
Finland actually has a system like that, where traffic fines are tied to income.
It would probably be a nightmare to implement, but it does make some sense.
In reality, though, there's so much variation among people as to what it will take to change their behavior. Different people respond to different types and levels of punishment. What doesn't bother some people is very painful to others. So even with a graduated system of fines based upon income, the effect is not going to be uniform across the spectrum.
Last post of the day.
True. However, at least it would be fair. I just do not see punishing a good kid/college student with exactly the same fines as someone working and making several hundred thousand dollars a year. I guess that is the one liberal thing left in me, punishment should be fair and equitable across the board. Doubly so when it comes to monetary punishment. To me "reasonable income based fines" would be vastly more effective than changing the entire system of enforcement.
Quote from: Raghavan on September 29, 2007, 12:26:49 PM
So if i was caught speeding i wouldn't get a ticket? :lol:
Ok, THIS is my last post of the day.
I do not know how to address kids still in school/dependant of parents. Maybe and automatic suspension for say 5 weeks for simple 10-20 over, and then it would become exponentially longer periods for every violation thereafter? Just throwing out some possibilities.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:07:38 PM
That's not the case at all.
I just think that if a law is so objectionable, we should fight to change it, rather than just break it and then bitch about getting busted on a forum.
In my hierarchy of things that really bother me, I put speed enforcement pretty low in the pecking order. Just as a small example, I find feminazi control of the family courts much more disturbing, even though it has yet to affect me directly.
The problem with being logical and intelligent is that everyone else is illogical and unintelligent. Majority rule has the weakness of relying on the majority when the minority is often better suited for the job.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:12:38 PM
Think about the Duke students falsely charged with rape with all the national publicity that went this that. That is the result of the power we have given to feminazis and racial arsonists.
So which do you find more disturbing -- the possibility of getting a speeding ticket that is technically legitimate, or facing something like that?
Situations like the Duke one make me far more angry than getting popped for speeding when I'm doing 20+ mph over the speed limit.
Just because one situation is more wrong than another doesn't mean one isn't wrong.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:32:33 PM
Ok, THIS is my last post of the day.
I do not know how to address kids still in school/dependant of parents. Maybe and automatic suspension for say 5 weeks for simple 10-20 over, and then it would become exponentially longer periods for every violation thereafter? Just throwing out some possibilities.
I'd give up my license for a month or so instead of a speeding ticket (provided i get no points of course).
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:29:52 PM
I just do not see punishing a good kid/college student with exactly the same fines as someone working and making several hundred thousand dollars a year.
Thanks! :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:25:48 PM
Finland actually has a system like that, where traffic fines are tied to income.
It would probably be a nightmare to implement, but it does make some sense.
In reality, though, there's so much variation among people as to what it will take to change their behavior. Different people respond to different types and levels of punishment. What doesn't bother some people is very painful to others. So even with a graduated system of fines based upon income, the effect is not going to be uniform across the spectrum.
No, it doesn't. You can't punish someone for being financially successful. It's fucking retarded.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 12:39:08 PM
No, it doesn't. You can't punish someone for being financially successful. It's fucking retarded.
Whereas under the current system, it acts as a regressive tax because it hits poor people the hardest./
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:32:33 PM
Ok, THIS is my last post of the day.
I do not know how to address kids still in school/dependant of parents. Maybe and automatic suspension for say 5 weeks for simple 10-20 over, and then it would become exponentially longer periods for every violation thereafter? Just throwing out some possibilities.
5 weeks?
License suspensions just lead to people driving with suspended licenses.
Quote from: hounddog on September 29, 2007, 12:29:52 PM
Last post of the day.
True. However, at least it would be fair. I just do not see punishing a good kid/college student with exactly the same fines as someone working and making several hundred thousand dollars a year. I guess that is the one liberal thing left in me, punishment should be fair and equitable across the board. Doubly so when it comes to monetary punishment. To me "reasonable income based fines" would be vastly more effective than changing the entire system of enforcement.
I don't disagree in principle. I just wonder if the nightmare of implementing such a thing would be worth it for such minor offenses and small amounts of money.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:25:48 PM
Finland actually has a system like that, where traffic fines are tied to income.
It would probably be a nightmare to implement, but it does make some sense.
In reality, though, there's so much variation among people as to what it will take to change their behavior. Different people respond to different types and levels of punishment. What doesn't bother some people is very painful to others. So even with a graduated system of fines based upon income, the effect is not going to be uniform across the spectrum.
Not too mention that every time you get a ticket, the state in question is going to delve into your financial records to establish your income. In my mind, that's personal information, and not any of their business, especially for the task of levying a fine. I'm sure they have ways of getting that information anyway, but I don't want to see it done for that purpose.
And yes, count me in the group of people who can't really afford speeding tickets (NACar: it hurts, I know :lol:)
I'd rather the current system, a flat fine for each offense for everybody.
Quote from: J86 on September 29, 2007, 12:39:59 PM
Whereas under the current system, it acts as a regressive tax because it hits poor people the hardest./
Speeding tickets act as a regressive tax?
It's called equity of law. You get fined the same as someone with much more money. That's fair. If it's that big of a tax, go get a better job.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 12:39:08 PM
No, it doesn't. You can't punish someone for being financially successful. It's fucking retarded.
That is why I can't agree with an income-based fine system. Otherwise, it does sound appealing.
Quote from: Raghavan on September 29, 2007, 12:36:35 PM
I'd give up my license for a month or so instead of a speeding ticket (provided i get no points of course).
That's because you don't particularly need to drive.
It goes back to my point that punishment has to hurt in order to be effective. You're clearly choosing the thing that would hurt you least.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:42:12 PM
That is why I can't agree with an income-based fine system. Otherwise, it does sound appealing.
Why do you think our tax system is designed to do?
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:42:12 PM
That is why I can't agree with an income-based fine system. Otherwise, it does sound appealing.
It only sounds appealing because you're on the opposite end of the spectrum. It sounds appealing the same way the estate tax sounds appealing.
Both things fuck you for working harder and smarter than other people.
I think you should be able to buy speeding ticket exemptions. $500 a year or so gets you out of tickets.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:42:36 PM
Why do you think our tax system is designed to do?
You're assuming that he agrees with a progressive tax system.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:42:36 PM
Why do you think our tax system is designed to do?
Taxes aren't punishment, they are revenue generation. Revenue generation can fairly be based on revenue. Punishments should primarily fit the crime, not the income of the criminal. Tickets aren't revenue generation, they're punishment... oh, wait a minute...
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 12:56:26 PM
Taxes aren't punishment, they are revenue generation. Revenue generation can fairly be based on revenue. Punishments should primarily fit the crime, not the income of the criminal. Tickets aren't revenue generation, they're punishment... oh, wait a minute...
:lol:
Yes, you've stumbled on a good point, Nick..... :ohyeah:
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 12:42:13 PM
That's because you don't particularly need to drive.
It goes back to my point that punishment has to hurt in order to be effective. You're clearly choosing the thing that would hurt you least.
Well if I could afford the ticket then i'd have no problem paying it.
Quote from: The Pirate on September 29, 2007, 12:40:48 PM
Not too mention that every time you get a ticket, the state in question is going to delve into your financial records to establish your income. In my mind, that's personal information, and not any of their business, especially for the task of levying a fine. I'm sure they have ways of getting that information anyway, but I don't want to see it done for that purpose.
And yes, count me in the group of people who can't really afford speeding tickets (NACar: it hurts, I know :lol:)
I'd rather the current system, a flat fine for each offense for everybody.
That's my concern, as well.
OK, Raza, look at it like this. I'm a college student and I make $7000 per year. If I get caught speeding and I get a $150 fine, that's a major financial setback. In other words, a fairly severe punishment. But if Mr. $700k/yr gets caught and has the same $150 fine to pay, it's less than they might spend on dinner for their date and themselves. So, a pretty much inane and ineffective punishment. It's like financial success allows you to break laws. That's fair?
Quote from: Psilos on September 29, 2007, 01:30:01 PM
That's my concern, as well.
OK, Raza, look at it like this. I'm a college student and I make $7000 per year. If I get caught speeding and I get a $150 fine, that's a major financial setback. In other words, a fairly severe punishment. But if Mr. $700k/yr gets caught and has the same $150 fine to pay, it's less than they might spend on dinner for their date and themselves. So, a pretty much inane and ineffective punishment. It's like financial success allows you to break laws. That's fair?
You're right. Rich people should be hanged for speeding.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 01:49:24 PM
You're right. Rich people should be hanged for speeding.
You first.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on September 29, 2007, 01:54:25 PM
You first.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/fightforjustice-kittydemedici.jpg?w=366&h=500)
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 01:49:24 PM
You're right. Rich people should be hanged for speeding.
No, but neither should poor people.
Quote from: Psilos on September 29, 2007, 02:55:45 PM
No, but neither should poor people.
That sounds equitable to me.
So you agree, then? :lol:
hounddog writes:
QuoteJust because people do it does not make it right. Sorry to include this, but the Bible is pretty clear when it comes to "Obey man's laws." . . . Unlike most, as an accident investigator and a police officer, I knew first hand the possible dangers of my speeding.
Nor does the mere existence of a law make it right, viz. slavery, women?s suffrage, and the explosion of nanny-state laws.
We do not and should not base the laws of our secular state on the bible, the koran, the torah or any other religious dogma. Instead, our polices as codified by our laws must be based on science and reason.
The ?speeding? of which most people speak and that is the usual target of enforcement effort is hardly unsafe. Remember the NMSL (?55?) and how roads that had been previously posted at 75 mph or even R&P (essentially unlimited) suddenly became unsafe at 56 mph? it was a fraud then and it?s still a fraud but then our administrations act surprised when the public distrusts them.
Quote(. . .the general public) must understand that the laws of physics are also pretty clear when it comes to speed. When you multiply speed times mass you get 'unsafe' very quickly regardless of what safety measures are designed into modern cars. For instance, the damage to a car that hits a post at 5 mph is more than significantly less than if the car was going say 55mph. Included in that is the FACT that as you increase your speed, you are exponentially more likely to become injured in a that crash.
Wrong equation. The laws of physics are not in question but hardly answer the correct question, instead being used to support an untenable argument. When traffic safety ?experts? start quoting the laws of physics, you can bet they?re getting their ass kicked in the argument. The real question that you (the safety cabal) must answer is whether or not the risk of injury, including the diminished likelihood of a crash in the first place, is greater at 75 mph now than it was at 50 mph in 1950-1975. Since the probability of a crash is far less now, the speed at which the vehicles travel is irrelevant. Remember, the laws of physics do not apply to crashes that do not occur.
QuoteIn this case, mathematics and statistics do not lie. More physical and measurable evidence of that is we have more auto related fatalities than ever before. IF the modern measures of better roadside traffic crash reducers/barriers and the safety measures built into our cars were enough, we should see fatal and serious injury accidents fall dramatically in correlation. They have not.
In fact, they have fallen dramatically. You?re just using the wrong measures. The population of drivers, vehicles and miles of roadway have increased dramatically, yet, even in absolute numbers, the number of fatalities decreased from 43,510 in 2005 to 42,462 in 2006 (latest data available). That?s a decline of 1,028 for passenger vehicle motorists/passengers but an increase of 234 for motorcyclists. That is a fatality rate 1.46 in 2005 and 1.42 in 2006, a decline of 2.7%.
Similarly, injuries fell absolutely from 2,446,000 in 2005 to 2,331,000 in 2006, a decline of 115,000 or 4.4%.
Note that both rates are per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a standard measure of traffic activity. (NHTSA, National Center for Statistics and Analysis).
QuoteIt has been established by every single accident expert in the world that the faster you go, the more likely you are to be injured in a crash, and the more severe those injuries should be. Those two things are absolutely [synonymous] with one another.
They are neither synonymous nor true. First, traffic engineers have established a concept called the crash incidence curve, correlating the number of crashes to different speeds on a given roadway. This curve looks rather like a backwards J, declining rather rapidly with moderate increases in speed, minimizing at a
point, then increasing with increasing speed albeit more slowly than the initial decline.
That
point is the infamous 85th percentile, which is what makes that point useful rather than arbitrary. Nota bene: 85th percentile is for urban and suburban roadways, the crash minimization point for interstate-grade and rural highways is the 95th percentile. That is why traffic engineers always call for speed limits to be set at the crash minimization point.
QuoteWhat is not included, or eluded to, is that if you go faster the odds of you crashing go up. But, I do believe that there is evidence to support that depending on a number of variables to include; time of day, weather, road condition (condidtion of the pavement/concrete), level of traffic on the roadway, etc.
That?s wrong. Once again, according to NHTSA, we are driving many more miles but the evidence of failures (crashes, injuries and fatalities) keeps improving. The reality is that we are driving faster and safer.
QuoteI think that when an officer issues a ticket for speed, most officers genuinely believe they are doing it for the greater good of society.
I have no doubt about the sincerity of the officers? motivation; my concern is the efficacy of the tools used as well as the underlying institutional motivation. There is evidence to show that the level of enforcement does not change driver behavior and therefore has no effect on our collective traffic safety. On a related note, we also know that changes in speed limits have no effect on either driver behavior nor on safety performance. (?Effects of Raising and Lowering the Speed Limit on Selected Roadway Sections,? Final Report, Report No. FHwA-RD-92-084, June 1996, popularly known as the Parker Report.)
QuoteI would guess, just a guess at that, that on average in the Detroit area for one day, most districts or jursdictions receive 20+ calls about bad driving on the freeways. Whatever the number really is, it is evidence that those calling for an elimination of speed restrictions are in the vast minority.
It tells us no such thing. All it says is that some people call 911; it does not address their motivation. What may be reported as ?bad driving? is more likely frustration or revenge against another driver. Remember the George Carlin rule: If a driver is going slower than you, he is a moron, and if he is going faster than you, he is a fool. Either situation could result in a cell call.
Also, keep in mind that every time a driver exceeds the posted limit, he is expressing his disagreement with the law.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 12:41:19 PM
Speeding tickets act as a regressive tax?
It's called equity of law. You get fined the same as someone with much more money. That's fair. If it's that big of a tax, go get a better job.
Fair? So, the rich can afford to speed, the poor can't. This is what you are describing as fair. Go get a better job is just a tad simplistic, but you know that.
Quote from: J86 on September 29, 2007, 07:19:55 PM
Fair? So, the rich can afford to speed, the poor can't. This is what you are describing as fair. Go get a better job is just a tad simplistic, but you know that.
Yes.
wow
Quote from: J86 on September 29, 2007, 07:46:48 PM
wow
It's not right for the law to treat people differently because of what they have or what they are. It's like saying we should give harsher punishments to black people than white.
Well, you're arguing for harsher punishments for poorer people than rich people, effectively.
Quote from: Psilos on September 29, 2007, 08:10:15 PM
Well, you're arguing for harsher punishments for poorer people than rich people, effectively.
A McDonald's Double Cheeseburger is still $1.00 no matter how rich or poor you are.
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 08:12:54 PM
A McDonald's Double Cheeseburger is still $1.00 no matter how rich or poor you are.
Most expenses in life are 'regressive.' The electric company doesn't care about your income when they determine your electric rates. Ditto for the phone company, food prices, etc.
Financially, things are not equal and never will be. The cost of trying to make them equal has been proven to be widespread poverty.
While on the subject of punishment and its dispirite effects on different people, think of a more serious case -- a murder conviction. An older person will effectively serve a lesser sentence for that, since he has fewer years to live. At the same time, when an older person goes to prison, that prison time will take up a larger percentage of his remaining life than it does for a younger person. There are many different ways to look at this issue, and it's clear that there will be inequalities whatever the system is.
As far as speeding goes, for many people, a more effective punishment than taking a person's money is taking a person's time. After 3 tickets in my state, you have to attend an all-day re-training class. To me, that is more onerous than the fine they'd come up with.
Quote from: Psilos on September 29, 2007, 08:10:15 PM
Well, you're arguing for harsher punishments for poorer people than rich people, effectively.
I'm arguing for the same punishment for the rich and for the poor. You're arguing for punishing people for becoming successful. Hate to pull the "anti-American" card, but really....
"Rich people are evil and you should take as much from them as possible"?
Quote from: NACar on September 29, 2007, 08:12:54 PM
A McDonald's Double Cheeseburger is still $1.00 no matter how rich or poor you are.
If you don't buy McDonald's, you don't go to jail. If you don't pay a fine, you do.
Look, I'm just arguing the point for the sake of it here...
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 08:55:08 PM
I'm arguing for the same punishment for the rich and for the poor. You're arguing for punishing people for becoming successful. Hate to pull the "anti-American" card, but really....
"Rich people are evil and you should take as much from them as possible"?
You should be poor sometime.
And, ya know, there are plenty of times when I
am anti-American, so shove that comment up yer butt. ;)
Quote from: Psilos on September 29, 2007, 09:08:09 PM
You should be poor sometime.
And, ya know, there are plenty of times when I am anti-American, so shove that comment up yer butt. ;)
I think I'll pass on the poor option.
It sucks. Not having money sucks. Money buys a lot of things. Comfort, luxury, happiness. But to punish someone for working hard and moving away from poverty is ridiculous. That's why I don't even like the progressive tax system we have in place now.
Punishing people for making money is a goddamn horrible thing to do.
What's worse is punishing people for not having money.
Quote from: Psilos on September 29, 2007, 09:16:10 PM
What's worse is punishing people for not having money.
If you punish them more for not having money, that's wrong.
I find it interesting that you think it's okay to punish someone for being successful, but it's wrong to treat people the same.
I can;t believe this is still going on. What's this thread even about now? I got bored around...page 1.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 09:35:07 PM
If you punish them more for not having money, that's wrong.
I find it interesting that you think it's okay to punish someone for being successful, but it's wrong to treat people the same.
I would insist that success does not (or should not) depend on one's pocketbook, but to each his own opinion on that matter, so I won't.
So long as both understand that this is a pretty philosophical discussion and not a practical one, it's hard to argue with equality for all based on class-- oh, sorry, I meant money. But that's it, isn't it? Class is the issue here, as it is with so many things. Why should one class be able to basically get away with paying a small toll to speed all over town, while another has to not eat decent food for a month because they were late for their doctor's appointment because their boss kept them ten minutes later than usual?
Understand also that my mind is not made up on this particular issue because it's fairly complicated in practical and other ways. Still, I don't agree with your rich-man's view.
Quote from: Raza on September 29, 2007, 12:43:49 PM
It only sounds appealing because you're on the opposite end of the spectrum. It sounds appealing the same way the estate tax sounds appealing.
Both things fuck you for working harder and smarter than other people.
I think you should be able to buy speeding ticket exemptions. $500 a year or so gets you out of tickets.
Estate takes don't hurt the person who actually worked for the money...
Quote from: dazzleman on September 29, 2007, 08:24:34 PM
Most expenses in life are 'regressive.' The electric company doesn't care about your income when they determine your electric rates. Ditto for the phone company, food prices, etc.
Financially, things are not equal and never will be. The cost of trying to make them equal has been proven to be widespread poverty.
While on the subject of punishment and its dispirite effects on different people, think of a more serious case -- a murder conviction. An older person will effectively serve a lesser sentence for that, since he has fewer years to live. At the same time, when an older person goes to prison, that prison time will take up a larger percentage of his remaining life than it does for a younger person. There are many different ways to look at this issue, and it's clear that there will be inequalities whatever the system is.
As far as speeding goes, for many people, a more effective punishment than taking a person's money is taking a person's time. After 3 tickets in my state, you have to attend an all-day re-training class. To me, that is more onerous than the fine they'd come up with.
Of course that would be regressive as well, richer people tend to be paid by salary and to get xx number of vacation days so they would essentially still be getting paid for the class while poorer, paid by the hour people would have to ask off work and forfeit income.
The reality is that life can not be fair. Cliched, yes, but it is the truth.
Quote from: TBR on September 30, 2007, 12:40:54 PM
Estate takes don't hurt the person who actually worked for the money...
They are your possessions, and you already paid taxes on them. Why shouldn't you be allowed to give it to whoever you want to without the government grabbing another slice of it?
But you're right, that's a different discussion.
Quote from: Psilos on September 30, 2007, 01:36:06 AM
I would insist that success does not (or should not) depend on one's pocketbook, but to each his own opinion on that matter, so I won't.
So long as both understand that this is a pretty philosophical discussion and not a practical one, it's hard to argue with equality for all based on class-- oh, sorry, I meant money. But that's it, isn't it? Class is the issue here, as it is with so many things. Why should one class be able to basically get away with paying a small toll to speed all over town, while another has to not eat decent food for a month because they were late for their doctor's appointment because their boss kept them ten minutes later than usual?
Understand also that my mind is not made up on this particular issue because it's fairly complicated in practical and other ways. Still, I don't agree with your rich-man's view.
If rich people have more expensive cars, they'll have higher insurance costs than poor people, so the ticket would cost them more in insurance increases. Does that make it more fair?
Fair in life will not happen. But that's not what I'm talking about. Fair in law is a must.
And fine, measure success however you want to. But when I say "success", I imply "financial success".
God damn hippies. :lol:
I've gone too long without reading this thread. I can add nothing because I am too lazy to go back and read.
Quote from: Catman on September 30, 2007, 04:48:27 PM
I've gone too long without reading this thread. I can add nothing because I am too lazy to go back and read.
The argument has gotten into whether traffic fines should be graduated according to income, or just a flat amount.
What's your opinion on that Greg?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg587392#msg587392 date=1191187083
They are your possessions, and you already paid taxes on them. Why shouldn't you be allowed to give it to whoever you want to without the government grabbing another slice of it?
But you're right, that's a different discussion.
I don't disagree with you in theory, but in practice I just don't care (I am not a big fan of generational wealth).
Besides, the government taxes many things multiple times. My car has been, by my math, taxed 15 different times (original sales tax, annual registration, and sales tax again when I bought it).
Quote from: TBR on September 30, 2007, 04:53:08 PM
I don't disagree with you in theory, but in practice I just don't care (I am not a big fan of generational wealth).
Besides, the government taxes many things multiple times. My car has been, by my math, taxed 15 different times (original sales tax, annual registration, and sales tax again when I bought it).
Isn't the used car tax great? I'm the 3rd owner of my car. The state has collected sales tax on the same car 3 times.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 30, 2007, 04:49:56 PM
The argument has gotten into whether traffic fines should be graduated according to income, or just a flat amount.
What's your opinion on that Greg?
So we should put together a new gov't agency to verify income on everyone and transmit their income to the police mobile computers so an officer can calculate the fine? Not going to happen. :nono:
Quote from: TBR on September 30, 2007, 04:53:08 PM
I don't disagree with you in theory, but in practice I just don't care (I am not a big fan of generational wealth).
Why? You think everyone should have to start on the bottom rung? If people gain immortality through their offspring, it's in their nature to want to give them better lives than what the parents had when they started. I don't understand the argument against generational wealth.
Quote from: Catman on September 30, 2007, 05:25:41 PM
So we should put together a new gov't agency to verify income on everyone and transmit their income to the police mobile computers so an officer can calculate the fine? Not going to happen. :nono:
You could argue the theoretical point either way I think, but in practical terms, the implementation of an income-based fine system would be a nightmare. And surely not worth the trouble in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: The Pirate on September 30, 2007, 05:10:43 PM
Isn't the used car tax great? I'm the 3rd owner of my car. The state has collected sales tax on the same car 3 times.
The government collects taxes on the same income many times also.
I pay taxes on my money, and if I hire somebody to do some work for me (such as a contractor, housekeeper, etc.), that person is taxed on the money I pay him/her.
The concept of taxes being collected on the same money (or in your case, object, multiple times) is a pretty widespread one.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg587528#msg587528 date=1191194813
Why? You think everyone should have to start on the bottom rung? If people gain immortality through their offspring, it's in their nature to want to give them better lives than what the parents had when they started. I don't understand the argument against generational wealth.
It creates spoiled, arrogant brats who would most often be happier and more successful without the money. People work harder and smarter when they have to build up their resources on their own.
I would rather give my children things to remember me by, then to give them a lot of money, which is, imho, actually a disadvantage.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 30, 2007, 06:28:45 PM
You could argue the theoretical point either way I think, but in practical terms, the implementation of an income-based fine system would be a nightmare. And surely not worth the trouble in the grand scheme of things.
That's pretty much true. Also, I'm not really comfortable with the government going through my income taxes or what have you whenever I get a ticket.
Quote from: TBR on September 30, 2007, 09:06:32 PM
It creates spoiled, arrogant brats who would most often be happier and more successful without the money. People work harder and smarter when they have to build up their resources on their own.
I would rather give my children things to remember me by, then to give them a lot of money, which is, imho, actually a disadvantage.
You really think that? I disagree completely.
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 08:48:06 AM
You really think that? I disagree completely.
Look at people like Paris Hilton and all of the kids of other famous people. They are almost all screwed up people because of their unrealistic upbringings, easy cash without having to work for it, etc.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 28, 2007, 04:54:20 PM
Why do you bother arguing with me in the first sentence just to prove my point in the second?
My knowing that the violation happened does not make me "infallible" or "all-knowing"...but I KNOW that THAT violation happened, or I would not be making the stop or issuing a ticket.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 01, 2007, 02:50:23 PM
Look at people like Paris Hilton and all of the kids of other famous people. They are almost all screwed up people because of their unrealistic upbringings, easy cash without having to work for it, etc.
And Paris Hilton represents all people born with means. Your assumption is based on availability, not logic.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 30, 2007, 06:28:45 PM
You could argue the theoretical point either way I think, but in practical terms, the implementation of an income-based fine system would be a nightmare. And surely not worth the trouble in the grand scheme of things.
Some european countries have tried such a scheme. There were some cases where people were levied huge fines, but instead of paying them made them into huge money losing court cases that they eventually settled for a fraction of what they were initially levied.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 01, 2007, 02:50:23 PM
Look at people like Paris Hilton and all of the kids of other famous people. They are almost all screwed up people because of their unrealistic upbringings, easy cash without having to work for it, etc.
So, I should use Mark Fuhrmann to base all of my opinions about cops on, and lt/ Calley to form my opinion of all military people as well, huh?
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 03:13:43 PM
And Paris Hilton represents all people born with means. Your assumption is based on availability, not logic.
I can think of at least two people on this board who would probably be alot happier and alot less stressed without their family's money and the expectations included with it.
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 06:14:14 PM
I can think of at least two people on this board who would probably be alot happier and alot less stressed without their family's money and the expectations included with it.
You're right. No one should have money ever.
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 06:17:28 PM
You're right. No one should have money ever.
When did I say anything like that? I am just of the opinion that people who work harder for their possessions (I am including education and money in that as well) get more satisfaction and good from them. It really doesn't seem to be an unreasonable theory at all.
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 06:30:45 PM
When did I say anything like that? I am just of the opinion that people who work harder for their possessions (I am including education and money in that as well) get more satisfaction and good from them. It really doesn't seem to be an unreasonable theory at all.
I think it's a stupid theory. Just because people are born with nice things doesn't mean they can't appreciate them.
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 06:32:28 PM
I think it's a stupid theory. Just because people are born with nice things doesn't mean they can't appreciate them.
Okay.
I think I am much more fit to judge the other side than you are.
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 06:39:44 PM
I think I am much more fit to judge the other side than you are.
Why is that? Because your parents make you pay for everything on your own? Or because your Christian sensibilities allow you to judge?
I think you're wrong.
As the person with the least amount of money on this entire forum, I can say that nobody here knows what they're talking about.
Count me in the "earn your way" crowd. My parents, though not in the top percentage of income in the country, are very financially sound and could have bought each of their kids new cars and paid for school fully for us. They paid most of our schooling (having us each take out minimal loans to appreciate the investment) and strived to always teach us the value of a buck.
I'll do the same for my kids. Even if I was a millionaire, I won't buy them cars. I will, however, help with schooling costs.
I agree fully with TBR.
This argument is fruitless. Neither side can go back, relive their chidhood, and then decide, so it's frikkin' meaningles.
They're poor people who don't appreciate anything. They're rich people who can appreciate anything.
Anybody remember the name of the guy who was the heir to the White trucks fortune and has amassed a huge collection of unrestored, near junk autos and assembled them into a giant history display? Here's a rich man who has found a sort of appreciation for things that most people consdier garbage. Tom something or other...
I used to drive limos in college. Occasionally, the job included picking up some of the players for the Detroit Lions. Most of these guys were born poor and have earned their money in a very real sense, and some of them seemed to not give a shit about anything they owned.
Glad I'm not any of your kids. I thought parents are supposed to want to give their children better lives, but you apparently get off on being withholding.
"No, I'm withholding it. Look at me, getting off."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Adwink.JPG)
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 06:57:04 PM
Glad I'm not any of your kids. I thought parents are supposed to want to give their children better lives, but you apparently get off on being withholding.
It can also mean giving your kids the tools to lead a better life, and making your kids earn what they get can help equip them for what they'll have to do later.
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 06:45:34 PM
Why is that? Because your parents make you pay for everything on your own? Or because your Christian sensibilities allow you to judge?
I think you're wrong.
Because it is easier to imagine having something that you have never had than to imagine not having it if you have always had it.
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2007, 06:57:04 PM
Glad I'm not any of your kids. I thought parents are supposed to want to give their children better lives, but you apparently get off on being withholding.
"No, I'm withholding it. Look at me, getting off."
Money and things are not a better life.
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
Money and things are not a better life.
That's just something poor people say.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 01, 2007, 10:06:49 PM
That's just something poor people say.
I'm poor, and I don't even say that.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 01, 2007, 10:06:49 PM
That's just something poor people say.
I would hardly qualify myself as poor.
(though I am guessing you are being sarcastic here, but oh well)
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 10:11:54 PM
I would hardly qualify myself as poor.
(though I am guessing you are being sarcastic here, but oh well)
Your poor, I'm poor, Raza's poor, and unless somebody here has their own private island staffed by playboy playmates, everybody here is poor.
(yes I was being sarcastic)
I like money and things!
So do I, but I am not so ignorant to think that they will really make my life better. They are a mere complement to many other things that really matter.
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 10:33:44 PM
So do I, but I am not so ignorant to think that they will really make my life better. They are a mere complement to many other things that really matter.
Look at it this way.
Take one person and say they are a humorless, friendless slob with no taste, no appreciation of art or music, no real accomplishments in life and no meaningful relationship.
Then take another person that's exactly the same except he has a private jet.
Who's life is better?
Neither. What is the point in having a jet if not only there is no one to travel with you but you have no interest in traveling either?
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 10:46:39 PM
Neither. What is the point in having a jet if not only there is no one to travel with you but you have no interest in traveling either?
Jets are fun. :praise:
Can't say that I particularly enjoy them, I'd rather drive.
Quote from: TBR on October 01, 2007, 10:48:12 PM
Can't say that I particularly enjoy them, I'd rather drive.
Try sitting in the pilot's seat...
I'm entirely shallow. I don't need my life to be made 'better' as such, because I'm not in the market for wholesomeness or fulfilment at the moment; just materialistic thrills.
:partyon:
Whoever says money and things don't make life more enjoyable is a liar. They won't ever make you completly happy, but they can certianly make your life more enjoyable.
Quote from: TBR on September 30, 2007, 09:06:32 PM
It creates spoiled, arrogant brats who would most often be happier and more successful without the money. People work harder and smarter when they have to build up their resources on their own.
I would rather give my children things to remember me by, then to give them a lot of money, which is, imho, actually a disadvantage.
Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 02, 2007, 08:23:36 AM
Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.
Yeah that's true. Money doesn't mean happiness either. I mean, it may mean short-term happiness. I'm sure I'd be psyched if I won the lottery, but I'm sure I'd eventually lose my values if I didn't control my spending.
Any thread with an Arrested Development referrence is solid in my book.
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 02, 2007, 08:23:36 AM
Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.
I couldn't agree more. I grew up middle class. I've had some very well off friends. I've seen with my own eyes the differences between rich parents with no parenting skills to those with great parenting skills. It's a no brainer to figure out which friends turned out to be decent people.
Just to add to the income based fines. I don't agree. Being punished for earning more money ( which can also mean for working more/harder ) is wrong. These are both American and Canadian values that people have been taught.
What should be done, and is done in some jurisdictions, is that it works against your insurance, AND.. having a license points system. Tickets will cause you to lose points. Lose enough of them, and you will not have a license. Then you cannot legally drive.
This way, whether you are rich,poor, middle of the road... the points always catch up to you.
Quote from: Champ on October 02, 2007, 10:15:23 AM
Any thread with an Arrested Development referrence is solid in my book.
:praise:
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 02, 2007, 08:23:36 AM
Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.
Certainly, but giving your kids everything they want is poor parenting as far as I am concerned. That is generational wealth, plain regular wealth (as in actually earned by the individual in question, not by his parents or other family members) is certainly fine by me, and is something I want to achieve.
Quote from: TBR on October 02, 2007, 06:11:58 PM
Certainly, but giving your kids everything they want is poor parenting as far as I am concerned. That is generational wealth, plain regular wealth (as in actually earned by the individual in question, not by his parents or other family members) is certainly fine by me, and is something I want to achieve.
Generational wealth does not mean that kids will be given everything they want.
To start with, "Generational Wealth" is wealth that is passed from one deceased family member to an offspring. It has nothing to do with giving your children anything while still alive.
Secondly, if a person wishes to give his or her wealth away upon their death, why should the government get ANY part of that which they have already collect an income tax.
Lastly, while we are on this topic, it is my considered opinion that persons above the age of 65, those receiving pensions, those receiving social security benefits including disability benefits, veterans of our armed forces (or more pointedly veterans of wars), and retired public employees such as police firefighters and teachers should not be required to pay any taxes at all upon retirement. These people have all done their bit for 'king and country.'
Of course, that comes from someone fairly biased.
Quote from: James Young on September 29, 2007, 06:56:30 PM
When traffic safety ?experts? start quoting the laws of physics, you can bet they?re getting their ass kicked in the argument.
This is an unbelievably sophmoric statement, and doubled by the fact of your insufferable reliance on statistics, which as we all know, are easily manipulated.
edit- spelling error
QuoteIn fact, they have fallen dramatically. You?re just using the wrong measures. The population of drivers, vehicles and miles of roadway have increased dramatically, yet, even in absolute numbers, the number of fatalities decreased from 43,510 in 2005 to 42,462 in 2006 (latest data available). That?s a decline of 1,028 for passenger vehicle motorists/passengers but an increase of 234 for motorcyclists. That is a fatality rate 1.46 in 2005 and 1.42 in 2006, a decline of 2.7%....[etc]
These numbers are deceiving, and couterproductive to your arguement that safer cars and crash barriers has resulted in fewer deaths and injuries at high speed.
These fatalities and injury reports are to include, but not limited to; car vs. pedestrian, car vs. bicycle, off-road vehicle while on road crashes (snowmobile or atv), car vs. animal, all motorcycle crashes, all fatalities from every speed zone, train vs. car, train vs. pedestrian when roadway is involved, etc.
Because of this, you assertion that since fatalities and injuries have fallen there is a correlation between those raw numbers and highway/auto safety are self-evident and self-prooving. That could not be further from the truth, and is highly inaccurate.
The rest of what you wrote is just you opining in your normal long- winded manner, not provable on your end, and is simply not worth my time and effort to respond.
Are you saying that because it's possible to manipulate statistical data, all statistical data has been manipulated?
Quote from: Psilos on October 03, 2007, 12:36:01 AM
Are you saying that because it's possible to manipulate statistical data, all statistical data has been manipulated?
Nothing of the kind, in fact, I am not even certain how you came to that.
I am saying that he wants more scientific methods used to determine "proper" speed limits, yet mocks the very science and mathmatics that would be required to make it happen; while seemingly wishing only to use raw traffic crash data collected by, as he would say, 'uneducated half-wits' or whatever insult he chooses to thinly and half-heartedly veil.
You keep saying how all the data presented to you is bad because they're stats.
Quote from: Psilos on October 03, 2007, 01:03:59 AM
You keep saying how all the data presented to you is bad because they're stats.
I never said the data is "bad," only that it has not been sorted through and catalogued, or classified into catagories, as presented. That is either by accident, or by design to bolster an arguement. The data is probably real, and I am not going to dispute its origin or authenticity. Mainly because I am too lazy and busy to look it up!
However, that does not mean that it is actually or specifically relevant to the topic as presented. A good scientist would never present raw data as relevant to his point without first sifting through that data to see where it actually bolsters his position.
Quote from: Psilos on October 03, 2007, 12:36:01 AM
Are you saying that because it's possible to manipulate statistical data, all statistical data has been manipulated?
Hounddog might not say it, but I sure will. Statistics, by their very nature, are manipulated. Let me explain...
First, statistics are boring. So, the vast majority of Americans don't pay any attention to raw statistics. They're nothing but numbers, and numbers can't keep the attention of the ADHD American public. So, through pure presentation, statistics are manipulated.
But, the biggest problem is, even raw statistics are manipulated by inclusion and omission. Statistics take a very specific focus on one small thing. Think of it in car terms...statistics focus on just the rotor in the distributor of a 57 Chevy. You can probably find some interesting information about that 57 Chevy by studying that rotor...maybe you can gleen information about the distributor, the electrical system, or even the entire engine by studying that rotor...but it doesn't necessarily tell you about the car as a whole. The same goes for statistical evaluations of things in the real world. Nothing in the world is totally uneffected by outside forces. The statistics only look at a small portion, potentially ignoring all of the outside forces that effect it. And, it's impossible to keep statistical records of every force that effects something in the world...there's just too much interaction in real-world scenarios. So, by deciding what
additional statistical data is presented or omitted, even totally accurate statistical data is manipulated.
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 02, 2007, 09:08:35 PM
Generational wealth does not mean that kids will be given everything they want.
Dad croaks, leaves his kids (perhaps they are adults, it is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned) $100 million, it is safe to say they will get everything they want. Additionally, generational wealth creates an attitude of entitlement, why shouldn't little Bobby get that new computer when he has a few million sitting in a trust fund?
Quote from: TBR on October 03, 2007, 08:50:16 AM
Dad croaks, leaves his kids (perhaps they are adults, it is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned) $100 million, it is safe to say they will get everything they want. Additionally, generational wealth creates an attitude of entitlement, why shouldn't little Bobby get that new computer when he has a few million sitting in a trust fund?
Your argument is bullshit.
Quote from: TBR on October 03, 2007, 08:50:16 AM
Dad croaks, leaves his kids (perhaps they are adults, it is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned) $100 million, it is safe to say they will get everything they want. Additionally, generational wealth creates an attitude of entitlement, why shouldn't little Bobby get that new computer when he has a few million sitting in a trust fund?
So what you're saying that the kids shouldn't get the money?
hounddog writes:
QuoteThis is an unbelievably sophmoric statement, and doubled by the fact of your insufferable reliance on statistics, which as we all know, are easily manipulated.
Sophomoric or not, it is a long-term observation of fact, going back at least to the days of the National Safety Council and the puerile
Signal 32-type films shown to all high school students. When you have to fall back to a position that is not in question and has been rendered irrelevant in a feeble attempt to demonstrate the validity of your current position, it?s time to get a new argument.
The nature of traffic flow and safety can be measured only by the use of statistical tools. Your problem is simply that you don?t like the truth that those statistics point out. They are not the story as you try to imply, but merely help us see the story, the complete story. What happens at a crash site in New Hampshire tells us little, but combined with 40,000 other fatal crashes gives us patterns and information by which we should be modifying our public policies.
Contrary to your belief, statistics are not easily manipulated, at least not in a public arena with critical peer review. Your allegation is simply that the statistics are being manipulated in order to prove our argument. That allegation is wrong. First, we?re not manipulating the statistics. What I gave was straight from NHTSA. Second, and more importantly, our argument arises out of the statistical evidence; that is, the evidence tells us where to go.
Let?s be very clear. NHTSA statistics are biased for two major reasons: (1) the primary source ? police reports ? is biased against speed because of historical perspectives that no longer obtain and because anti-speed is much safer politically and (2) NHTSA was organized and remains staffed by anti-speed people, many from the insurance industry. Even with all that built-in bias and despite all their anti-speed verbiage, they cannot ? and therefore you cannot ? dismiss the truths exposed by these statistics. Note that these statistics are not samples but are the entire population of events so there is no sampling error. When they speak of ~40,000 fatal crashes, their data include
all fatal crashes across the nation. It is not as though they sampled 50 fatal crashes and extrapolated from there.
QuoteThese numbers are deceiving, and couterproductive to your arguement that safer cars and crash barriers has resulted in fewer deaths and injuries at high speed.
You were the one who made the absurd allegation in Reply #299: ?More physical and measurable evidence of that is we have more auto related fatalities than ever before. IF the modern measures of better roadside traffic crash reducers/barriers and the safety measures built into our cars were enough, we should see fatal and serious injury accidents fall dramatically in correlation. They have not.?
That allegation is false and I gave the proof using your own statistics.
Those numbers are actual values for the entire nation for the two years in question. That is hardly deceiving. Far from being counterproductive, they support the obvious conclusion that safer cars and better-engineered roadways actually work, reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities. What other conclusion could realistically be drawn?
QuoteThese fatalities and injury reports are to include, but not limited to; car vs. pedestrian, car vs. bicycle, off-road vehicle while on road crashes (snowmobile or atv), car vs. animal, all motorcycle crashes, all fatalities from every speed zone, train vs. car, train vs. pedestrian when roadway is involved, etc.
That is correct and they
do include every fatal and injury crash from every roadway in America, including all of those above..
QuoteBecause of this, you assertion that since fatalities and injuries have fallen there is a correlation between those raw numbers and highway/auto safety are self-evident and self-prooving. That could not be further from the truth, and is highly inaccurate.
Those are not ?raw? numbers. They are tabulated data from NHTSA. They are verifiable back to the sources. The improvements in automotive technology, civil engineering and traffic engineering
does correlate to the tabulated data from NHTSA, as well as many others. The conclusion is obvious: improvements in technology lead to improvements in our safety performance. PERIOD.
Obviously, since you say I?m wrong, then you need to demonstrate a correlation between another set of factors and improvements in safety performance. Put your work up for peer review and once that?s completed, we?ll examine it. If I?m far from the truth and inaccurate, please tell us exactly where and why that is the case and support your argument.
QuoteThe rest of what you wrote is just you opining in your normal long- winded manner, not provable on your end, and is simply not worth my time and effort to respond.
You?re entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, my set of facts is far superior to yours. The sad fact is that failing to respond to me is not a matter of time and effort but that you can?t because the science is not on your side.
QuoteI am saying that he [JY] wants more scientific methods used to determine "proper" speed limits, yet mocks the very science and mathmatics that would be required to make it happen. . .
I have no idea what you mean here. Far from mocking the science, I embrace it and my argument follows from that.
Quote. . .while seemingly wishing only to use raw traffic crash data collected by, as he would say, 'uneducated half-wits' or whatever insult he chooses to thinly and half-heartedly veil.
Again, it is not ?raw? data. You?re throwing up a lot of crap that doesn?t even make sense.
One of the rights that we do not enjoy as humans is the right to not be insulted. If you?re insulted, get over it.
QuoteI never said the data is "bad," only that it has not been sorted through and catalogued, or classified into catagories, as presented. That is either by accident, or by design to bolster an arguement. The data is probably real, and I am not going to dispute its origin or authenticity. Mainly because I am too lazy and busy to look it up!
However, that does not mean that it is actually or specifically relevant to the topic as presented. A good scientist would never present raw data as relevant to his point without first sifting through that data to see where it actually bolsters his position.
That?s just flat wrong. Again, you?re just throwing stuff out without knowing what you?re even talking about. This is getting embarrassing.
bing_oh writes:
QuoteHounddog might not say it, but I sure will. Statistics, by their very nature, are manipulated. Let me explain...
First, statistics are boring. . . . So, through pure presentation, statistics are manipulated.
But, the biggest problem is, even raw statistics are manipulated by inclusion and omission. Statistics take a very specific focus on one small thing. . . . The same goes for statistical evaluations of things in the real world. Nothing in the world is totally uneffected by outside forces. The statistics only look at a small portion, potentially ignoring all of the outside forces that effect it. And, it's impossible to keep statistical records of every force that effects something in the world...there's just too much interaction in real-world scenarios. So, by deciding what additional statistical data is presented or omitted, even totally accurate statistical data is manipulated.
Statistics are a tool. They are but a representation of the truth, a tool like a microscope or a telescope to help us see what we cannot see in their absence. These ARE NOT raw data and to represent them as such is na?ve at best, dishonest at worst. The idea behind keeping statistics about traffic flow and safety is to reveal the results rather than to enumerate all the potential forces that could possible affect such event, i.e., The Butterfly Effect. What we then do with the information is to use it to guide our policy responses to improve our performance. What the anti-speed cabal would have us do is to ignore the science and base our response on political needs and desires, and
that is fraud.
What the current numbers and trends show us is that the technological revolution is having a positive effect on traffic safety but that the laws and enforcement are not. You don?t like that because it diminishes the importance of your job and your institution but I always say it is better to go with the science than follow a well-trodden path to ruin.
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 03, 2007, 11:02:18 AM
So what you're saying that the kids shouldn't get the money?
Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 03, 2007, 02:07:21 PM
Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.
Another arbitrary, meaningless number set by a bureaucrat.
Quote from: James Young on October 03, 2007, 01:08:29 PMStatistics are a tool. They are but a representation of the truth, a tool like a microscope or a telescope to help us see what we cannot see in their absence. These ARE NOT raw data and to represent them as such is na?ve at best, dishonest at worst. The idea behind keeping statistics about traffic flow and safety is to reveal the results rather than to enumerate all the potential forces that could possible affect such event, i.e., The Butterfly Effect. What we then do with the information is to use it to guide our policy responses to improve our performance. What the anti-speed cabal would have us do is to ignore the science and base our response on political needs and desires, and that is fraud.
What the current numbers and trends show us is that the technological revolution is having a positive effect on traffic safety but that the laws and enforcement are not. You don’t like that because it diminishes the importance of your job and your institution but I always say it is better to go with the science than follow a well-trodden path to ruin.
Sorry, but I actually chuckled about that one. Do you realize how unimportant I really am? I have very little ego left after 9 years of LE. I know that I'm, at best, a very small cog in a very big machine. I do my job because I get personal satisfaction from doing something that I think improves my society and helps others...not much (I no longer have that delusion, either), but maybe just a little bit.
As for traffic stuff, I'll be perfectly blunt with you...I ABSOLUTELY HATE DOING TRAFFIC! I hate running radar and laser. I hate handing out traffic tickets (excluding DUS and OVI, which I enjoy working). I'd be doing the Snoopy dance on the top of my doghouse if I didn't have to do most of the traffic crap I do during an average shift. But I can see that directed traffic enforcement DOES have an effect on driver behavior and, as such, an effect on crash frequency. And, what I hate even more that traffic is doing crashes. With the winter months quickly approaching, I hate crashes even more (there's nothing that puts me in a bad mood like dodging idiots on ice while I'm trying to do a crash on an unprotected roadway in mid-January when it's -20 and snowing like a MF'er).
So, if we could technologically create the ultimate safe roadway, I and my fellow LEO's would probably be the first ones to congratulate the inventors and have a beer in celebration.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 03, 2007, 01:43:29 AM
Hounddog might not say it, but I sure will. Statistics, by their very nature, are manipulated. Let me explain...
First, statistics are boring. So, the vast majority of Americans don't pay any attention to raw statistics. They're nothing but numbers, and numbers can't keep the attention of the ADHD American public. So, through pure presentation, statistics are manipulated.
But, the biggest problem is, even raw statistics are manipulated by inclusion and omission. Statistics take a very specific focus on one small thing. Think of it in car terms...statistics focus on just the rotor in the distributor of a 57 Chevy. You can probably find some interesting information about that 57 Chevy by studying that rotor...maybe you can gleen information about the distributor, the electrical system, or even the entire engine by studying that rotor...but it doesn't necessarily tell you about the car as a whole. The same goes for statistical evaluations of things in the real world. Nothing in the world is totally uneffected by outside forces. The statistics only look at a small portion, potentially ignoring all of the outside forces that effect it. And, it's impossible to keep statistical records of every force that effects something in the world...there's just too much interaction in real-world scenarios. So, by deciding what additional statistical data is presented or omitted, even totally accurate statistical data is manipulated.
So what you're basically saying is, I should just take your word for it?
Quote from: bing_oh on October 03, 2007, 03:53:47 PM
Sorry, but I actually chuckled about that one. Do you realize how unimportant I really am? I have very little ego left after 9 years of LE. I know that I'm, at best, a very small cog in a very big machine. I do my job because I get personal satisfaction from doing something that I think improves my society and helps others...not much (I no longer have that delusion, either), but maybe just a little bit.
As for traffic stuff, I'll be perfectly blunt with you...I ABSOLUTELY HATE DOING TRAFFIC! I hate running radar and laser. I hate handing out traffic tickets (excluding DUS and OVI, which I enjoy working). I'd be doing the Snoopy dance on the top of my doghouse if I didn't have to do most of the traffic crap I do during an average shift. But I can see that directed traffic enforcement DOES have an effect on driver behavior and, as such, an effect on crash frequency. And, what I hate even more that traffic is doing crashes. With the winter months quickly approaching, I hate crashes even more (there's nothing that puts me in a bad mood like dodging idiots on ice while I'm trying to do a crash on an unprotected roadway in mid-January when it's -20 and snowing like a MF'er).
So, if we could technologically create the ultimate safe roadway, I and my fellow LEO's would probably be the first ones to congratulate the inventors and have a beer in celebration.
LOL. Couldn't agree more with this post. Working on the technology front for two years has been a breath of fresh air for me. 14 years in LE has made me start looking forward to retirement. Not that I don't like being a police officer but when you start to realize the actual burden of it and the constant criticism from the public you get cynical and fatigued. It's a good job for the younger guys but it only takes about 5 years for reality to take hold.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 03, 2007, 02:07:21 PM
Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.
I know plenty of 40 year old that can't be trusted with holding on to even $3000 in excess funds.
It's not the age in most cases. It's the upbringing that determines the person's mental acuity in realizing foolishly spending a great deal of wealth is not in his/her best interests.
bing_oh writes:
QuoteSorry, but I actually chuckled about that one.
That would be me: comedian to the cops. Laughter is good for you; keep it up.
QuoteDo you realize how unimportant I really am?
Well, yes, but then y?all tell me that I?m insulting.
QuoteAs for traffic stuff, I'll be perfectly blunt with you...I ABSOLUTELY HATE DOING TRAFFIC! I hate running radar and laser. I hate handing out traffic tickets.
I don?t doubt that you and many if not most LEOs hate doing traffic. However, that doesn?t help us as drivers because the citation from an Officer Bob, to whom a traffic stop is a near sexual epiphany, is just the same as one from the guy who hated giving it in the first place. It is just as costly to us and still does no good.
QuoteSo, if we could technologically create the ultimate safe roadway, I and my fellow LEO's would probably be the first ones to congratulate the inventors and have a beer in celebration.
Sorry, that won?t happen because the system is too large, too complex and too dynamic to ever achieve perfection. However, the law enforcement institution is loathe to recognize the fact that traffic safety is improving without regard to anything that they do.
Listen to guys like nameless and they?d have you believing that they are the plastic wrap that keeps all of society from sliding into anarchy, yet when we consider that the overwhelming majority of VMT are done out of sight of enforcement and that the key rates just keep dropping, we are forced to consider alternatives to the conventional institutional wisdom.
Quote from: James Young on October 03, 2007, 06:23:12 PM
I don?t doubt that you and many if not most LEOs hate doing traffic. However, that doesn?t help us as drivers because the citation from an Officer Bob, to whom a traffic stop is a near sexual epiphany, is just the same as one from the guy who hated giving it in the first place. It is just as costly to us and still does no good.
Why are you whining to us, though? MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT!!! POLICE DON'T MAKE THE LAWS! If you don't like the laws, then vote someone into office who will change them for you. Send letters to your state representatives. If your argumants are so damn persuasive, then you shouldn't have any problem getting the politicians that you vote for every few years to change the laws for you. Stop busting the chops of the officers who enforce those laws...we have as much control over what is law as you do. Officers each have one vote, just like you do. Whatever law is enacted, we enforce...that's part of that oath I took when I became a LEO.
QuoteSorry, that won?t happen because the system is too large, too complex and too dynamic to ever achieve perfection. However, the law enforcement institution is loathe to recognize the fact that traffic safety is improving without regard to anything that they do.
Same as above. Has nothing to do with "the law enforcement institution" (whatever the hell that is).
QuoteListen to guys like nameless and they?d have you believing that they are the plastic wrap that keeps all of society from sliding into anarchy, yet when we consider that the overwhelming majority of VMT are done out of sight of enforcement and that the key rates just keep dropping, we are forced to consider alternatives to the conventional institutional wisdom.
Actually, law enforcement does go a long way to protecting society from anarchy. I'm not sure what this has to do with traffic laws, but since you brought it up let's discuss it. How many members of American society do YOU think can take care of criminal issues on their own? We're breeding a society of victims. It's gotten so bad, with people not even knowing their neighbors and calling LE to solve every little dispute they get into, that I wonder what an average size city would do without government intervention like LE. I suspect we'd see something like LA during the riots, with most people cowering in their homes and a small number running the streets like animals. It's not that most people are inherently evil and that society would tear itself apart without people to keep the peace, it's more like the average person has become so used to the government providing specialized services for them that they wouldn't know how to cope without those services.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 03, 2007, 08:26:21 PM
Actually, law enforcement does go a long way to protecting society from anarchy. I'm not sure what this has to do with traffic laws, but since you brought it up let's discuss it. How many members of American society do YOU think can take care of criminal issues on their own? We're breeding a society of victims. It's gotten so bad, with people not even knowing their neighbors and calling LE to solve every little dispute they get into, that I wonder what an average size city would do without government intervention like LE. I suspect we'd see something like LA during the riots, with most people cowering in their homes and a small number running the streets like animals. It's not that most people are inherently evil and that society would tear itself apart without people to keep the peace, it's more like the average person has become so used to the government providing specialized services for them that they wouldn't know how to cope without those services.
I'm afraid you're on to something with that last paragraph (above).
well fuck, cut 'em all an let darwin take the course for a couple years... :lol:
Quote from: J86 on October 03, 2007, 08:35:07 PM
well fuck, cut 'em all an let darwin take the course for a couple years... :lol:
You have a great point there. In our society today, we have effectively eliminated the process of natural selection. As a species, it is now quite unlikely that humans will ever evolve past the point we are at now.
Quote from: NACar on October 03, 2007, 08:38:04 PM
You have a great point there. In our society today, we have effectively eliminated the process of natural selection. As a species, it is now quite unlikely that humans will ever evolve past the point we are at now.
We stopped evolving on a biological level when we created advanced society. Our brains have, for the most part, eliminated biological evolution by humans because we have created ways to alter our environment to suit our own needs. And, since evolution requires adaptation to hardship, we've stopped evolving in many major ways. I'd guess that the only major evolutionary jumps we're going to see will be in relation to the human brain. That, plus the fact that we have found ways to slow or even cure disease without the adaptation of human biology, and that we actually protect biological defects through modern medical science, means that humans are much less likely to eliminate our own weaknesses through natural selection.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 03, 2007, 09:27:50 PM
We stopped evolving on a biological level when we created advanced society. Our brains have, for the most part, eliminated biological evolution by humans because we have created ways to alter our environment to suit our own needs. And, since evolution requires adaptation to hardship, we've stopped evolving in many major ways. I'd guess that the only major evolutionary jumps we're going to see will be in relation to the human brain. That, plus the fact that we have found ways to slow or even cure disease without the adaptation of human biology, and that we actually protect biological defects through modern medical science, means that humans are much less likely to eliminate our own weaknesses through natural selection.
We are continuing to evolve into a fatter species.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 03, 2007, 02:07:21 PM
Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.
It's not the goverments place to decide how to raise children.
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 04, 2007, 11:54:21 AM
It's not the goverments place to decide how to raise children.
Trust funds can be set up by a parent or guardian, and stipulations of said trust fund controlled by their wishes as well. There's no gov't involvement.
As far as it not being the government's place to decide how to raise children, I generally agree.
bing_oh writes:
QuoteWhy are you whining to us, though? MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT!!! POLICE DON'T MAKE THE LAWS!
Hello? Police lobby for or against laws, propose laws, testify before legislative committees and are afforded a much greater access to legislators than citizens ever can have and they do it all with public money. Please do not condescend us by hiding behind that tired old mantra. Pointing out malfeasance, incompetence and hypocrisy is hardly ?whining.?
QuoteIf you don't like the laws, then vote someone into office who will change them for you. Send letters to your state representatives. If your argumants are so damn persuasive, then you shouldn't have any problem getting the politicians that you vote for every few years to change the laws for you.
Actually, we have gotten laws changed. We got NMSL rescinded, anti-impeding laws placed and have successfully fought RLC in some places. We have had a positive effect. Driving productivity and safety performance are ever increasing. You?re welcome.
It is hopelessly na?ve to believe that politicians have any interest in rational, science-based laws, when a solid majority of them still believe in creationism instead of science. They are interested in what gets them re-elected or in what would prevent their re-election. Virtually none of them know the 85th percentile concept and just pull a limit out of their ass, based on little more than what they can do that is
politically safe.
More than once and in more than one state, I?ve been told outright that a state rep would not see me because I did not contribute to his campaign. Just think if the police only responded to calls where the caller had contributed to the PBA.
QuoteHas nothing to do with "the law enforcement institution" (whatever the hell that is).
?Institution? in this case refers to the social mechanism that drives the behavior of members of that institution, particularly protection of the institution first and foremost, without regard to the original purpose of the organization or its current status. Think of the Catholic Church. Think about the response of the Church hierarchy to the rampant pedophilia in the priesthood. That?s institutional behavior aimed at protecting and perpetuating the Church, all without regard to the original purpose of the church or the wisdom of its continuation.
NYPD, LAPD, the FBI and BATF are all institutions and all are subunits of the larger institution of ?law enforcement,? which has taken on a life of its own, regardless of its original purpose or the wisdom of its effort now. Members protect it first and foremost, swarming around accused and often guilty officers or blindly denying misbehavior in the face of overwhelming evidence. Think about the obsession with justifying Ruby Ridge, Waco and Rodney King. Law enforcement would be better served without some of these guys but the need to protect the organization overwhelms reason and even long-term benefits.
You're not doing it, but others have confused "institutional behavior" with mental illness and the institutions that deal with them. The "institutionalism" of which I speak has nothing to do with mental illness or mental hospitals.
QuoteI suspect we'd see something like LA during the riots, with most people cowering in their homes and a small number running the streets like animals.
Do you mean when I was in charge of a hotel and we were called three times in a row with the message that they were ?gonna burn down your building?? Do you mean when we called 911 and they (presumably LAPD) told us they were too busy, that we were on our own? [That's cleaned up from what they told my operator.] Do you mean when we were hit with a Molotov-cocktail but we took care of it ourselves and had no injuries to guests or employees? Do you mean when LAPD disappeared during the riots? Do you when LAPD created the situation in the first place by abusing minorities for 20+ years, refusing to respond honestly? Do you mean when LAPD tried to cite ?resisting arrest? only to find that they had been videotaped? Do you mean when LAPD found out we had some major CBS executives (network, not LA) in house, their whole tune changed and they couldn?t get there fast enough?
Are those the riots you?re talking about?
Quote from: JYODER240 on October 04, 2007, 11:54:21 AM
It's not the goverments place to decide how to raise children.
The question was asked, that was MY solution. On the other hand though, if you are spitting out kids left and right and then coming to society with your hand out looking for money, society SHOULD be dictating the terms of that aid..stuff like you getting sterilized so you don't produce any more kids you cannot support, the kids you DO have going into foster care til you can support them w/out society paying the dime, etc. Once again, thats MY solution.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 04, 2007, 11:33:29 PM
The question was asked, that was MY solution. On the other hand though, if you are spitting out kids left and right and then coming to society with your hand out looking for money, society SHOULD be dictating the terms of that aid..stuff like you getting sterilized so you don't produce any more kids you cannot support, the kids you DO have going into foster care til you can support them w/out society paying the dime, etc. Once again, thats MY solution.
I usually consider it beneath me to call people Nazis, but when they bring up eugenics, I take exception to that rule.
Quote from: James Young on October 04, 2007, 10:16:30 PM
Hello? Police lobby for or against laws, propose laws, testify before legislative committees and are afforded a much greater access to legislators than citizens ever can have and they do it all with public money. Please do not condescend us by hiding behind that tired old mantra. Pointing out malfeasance, incompetence and hypocrisy is hardly ?whining.?
Malfeasance, incompetence, and hypocricy?!?! Why the fuck do I even bother responding to you, James? I try to hold a civil discussion and you accuse me and all other police of being narrow-minded, criminal idiots.
QuoteActually, we have gotten laws changed. We got NMSL rescinded, anti-impeding laws placed and have successfully fought RLC in some places. We have had a positive effect. Driving productivity and safety performance are ever increasing. You?re welcome.
Bravo. You figured out how to operate within the system. Why are you still on a message board bitching instead of continuing your lobbying to the politicos?
QuoteIt is hopelessly na?ve to believe that politicians have any interest in rational, science-based laws, when a solid majority of them still believe in creationism instead of science. They are interested in what gets them re-elected or in what would prevent their re-election. Virtually none of them know the 85th percentile concept and just pull a limit out of their ass, based on little more than what they can do that is politically safe.
Politicians just want to be re-elected?!?! You kidding me! :rolleyes:
QuoteMore than once and in more than one state, I?ve been told outright that a state rep would not see me because I did not contribute to his campaign. Just think if the police only responded to calls where the caller had contributed to the PBA.
I'm glad you consider us one step above politicians...
Quote?Institution? in this case refers to the social mechanism that drives the behavior of members of that institution, particularly protection of the institution first and foremost, without regard to the original purpose of the organization or its current status. Think of the Catholic Church. Think about the response of the Church hierarchy to the rampant pedophilia in the priesthood. That?s institutional behavior aimed at protecting and perpetuating the Church, all without regard to the original purpose of the church or the wisdom of its continuation.
NYPD, LAPD, the FBI and BATF are all institutions and all are subunits of the larger institution of ?law enforcement,? which has taken on a life of its own, regardless of its original purpose or the wisdom of its effort now. Members protect it first and foremost, swarming around accused and often guilty officers or blindly denying misbehavior in the face of overwhelming evidence. Think about the obsession with justifying Ruby Ridge, Waco and Rodney King. Law enforcement would be better served without some of these guys but the need to protect the organization overwhelms reason and even long-term benefits.
You're not doing it, but others have confused "institutional behavior" with mental illness and the institutions that deal with them. The "institutionalism" of which I speak has nothing to do with mental illness or mental hospitals.
Do you mean when I was in charge of a hotel and we were called three times in a row with the message that they were ?gonna burn down your building?? Do you mean when we called 911 and they (presumably LAPD) told us they were too busy, that we were on our own? [That's cleaned up from what they told my operator.] Do you mean when we were hit with a Molotov-cocktail but we took care of it ourselves and had no injuries to guests or employees? Do you mean when LAPD disappeared during the riots? Do you when LAPD created the situation in the first place by abusing minorities for 20+ years, refusing to respond honestly? Do you mean when LAPD tried to cite ?resisting arrest? only to find that they had been videotaped? Do you mean when LAPD found out we had some major CBS executives (network, not LA) in house, their whole tune changed and they couldn?t get there fast enough?
Are those the riots you?re talking about?
Let's argue Waco, Rodney King, and the LA Riots shall we? Oh yea...I'd absolutely LOVE to get into discussions of those with you! During my academy traning, both Waco and Rodney King were subjects of intense discussion.
I got to watch some of the video footage from Rodney King that the media never thought was good enough for public dissemination. I got to hear the reports from the first officer on the scene, a female, who almost SHOT King before her supervisor showed up on the scene. I watched the "beating" and compaired it to the training for the PR24 baton, realizing that the officers were poorly trained on that particular weapon, were using it incorrectly and contrary to its proper use, and were using it on a man with high levels of cocaine in his system. I got to watch video of Rodney King STANDING UP WITH 6 OFFICERS ON HIS BACK!!! Rodney king was the biggest bunch of media-induced, whitewashed bullshit of the 20th century! Rodney King, a very large violent crack addict, should have been shot when the first officer arrived on the scene.
Let's talk about the LA Riots. Yea, that was all about Rodney King and pent-up racial discord. No better way to show your outrage over racial mistreatment than to BURN NEIGHBORHOODS COMPRISED MOSTLY OF MINORITY RESIDENTS, right? Yea, nothing says "we want better treatment" than stealing TV's. Want to know why the LAPD didn't respond to your calls during the riots? BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERWHELMED WITH TRYING TO CONTROL RIOTS!!!! Even the largest police forces in the nation are miniscule compaired to the number of people that they police.
Let's talk about Waco. Let's talk about the officers and federal agents who were shot and killed that day (that nobody even talks about). Let's talk about the truth, that the Branch Davidians committed mass suicide after firing on federal law enforcement officers attempting to serve a LEGAL WARRANT. Don't spout off the conspiracy theory bullshit...I'm not swallowing it.
I'm done with your crap, James. I'm done pounding my head into the wall. I'm done with taking your snide comments and your insults. Argue with somebody else.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 04, 2007, 11:38:36 PM
I usually consider it beneath me to call people Nazis, but when they bring up eugenics, I take exception to that rule.
If people cannot afford the kids they are having and ask society for help, then society should be able to set some ground rules for giving that aid. Want public aid? Fine; we'll make sure you don't add any more mouths to the welfare rolls beyond what we already have to support because you don't want to work.
If you want to call that eugenics, thats your call. I call it being fiscally responsible when too many people in this country think they are entitled to perpetually stick their hand out looking for the next handout with zero responsibility on their part.
Quote from: the nameless one on October 05, 2007, 09:12:39 AM
If people cannot afford the kids they are having and ask society for help, then society should be able to set some ground rules for giving that aid. Want public aid? Fine; we'll make sure you don't add any more mouths to the welfare rolls beyond what we already have to support because you don't want to work.
If you want to call that eugenics, thats your call. I call it being fiscally responsible when too many people in this country think they are entitled to perpetually stick their hand out looking for the next handout with zero responsibility on their part.
When I think about people like you holding a badge and a gun, I throw up in my mouth a little.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 03:19:27 PM
When I think about people like you holding a badge and a gun, I throw up in my mouth a little.
What an immature thing to say.
People in America are allowed to have their own opinions. A police officers opinions are just as much allowed as yours. Walk a mile in anothers shoes before you cast judgement. Or in the case of some here, even 39 feet would be helpful to open their closed eyes.
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 05:19:34 PM
What an immature thing to say.
People in America are allowed to have their own opinions. A police officers opinions are just as much allowed as yours. Walk a mile in anothers shoes before you cast judgement. Or in the case of some here, even 39 feet would be helpful to open their closed eyes.
Read a history book. Find out what the word "eugenics" means. Find out about the sterilization programs in Nazi Germany and Communist China, and realize that that is exactly what nameless is proposing here.
And then tell me how immature my response is.
A cop, any cop should have at least a basic understanding of what basic human rights are.
"Poor people should be sterilized" is not a valid opinion worthy of me considering.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 05:23:07 PM
Read a history book. Find out what the word "eugenics" means. Find out about the sterilization programs in Nazi Germany and Communist China, and realize that that is exactly what nameless is proposing here.
And then tell me how immature my response is.
A cop, any cop should have at least a basic understanding of what basic human rights are.
"Poor people should be sterilized" is not a valid opinion worthy of me considering.
It is still an immature post. And, I think I understand what the term means. Thanks for inferring I am an idiot.
I am also certain he is very well aware of what peoples rights are. :rolleyes:
He is probably far more aware of what peoples rights actually are than you are, as is the case most of the time. People very rarely actually know what their rights are, but think they know.
What I am most certain of, are his right as a person and citizen of the United States to those beliefs he may have.
You have never served your country in anyway other than to go to work. I do not even know if you have never been in jail, so I can not say that you have tried to serve by obeying the law. Those of us who have spent our entire adult lives serving have a much different perspective on where this country is going, or already has become.
Althought I do not agree with the forced sterilization idea, I do believe that licenses should be required to have children outside of wedlock, or if on welfare or any other form of government subsidy. If the government is forced to pay for these kids, which we are, the government should have some say into how they are raised and how many more are produced.
He actually implied that you're an idiot. You inferred.
:lol:
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 05:46:28 PM
You have never served your country in anyway other than to go to work.
Nice assumption there,
Don't go around telling me I don't understand what rights are. You apparently don't either: licenses to have children? Jesus fucking Christ, what is wrong with you?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 05:56:02 PM
Nice assumption there,
Don't go around telling me I don't understand what rights are. You apparently don't either: licenses to have children? Jesus fucking Christ, what is wrong with you?
Fine, what have you done to serve your country?
What is wrong with me? I am tired of a huge chunk of our taxes going to fund out-of -wedlock children and their many-fathered-siblings. I am tired of those funds being given to women who have no idea how to use birthcontrol. I am tired of having several generations of children raised by the welfare system, and having them believe the government will provide for them no matter how irresponsible they are, and the government actually providing for them. I am tired of the old liberal bullshit line that being a single mother is something that should be upheld as decent and honorable. I am tired of liberals insisting that all problems can be fixed with higher taxes, and more money thrown at the problem. I am tired of people who mock any attempts to control our welfare system. I am tired of the democrats supporting every pro-welfare system that comes down the pike. I am tired of throwing money, aka our tax dollars, at people who do not appreciate it only to have them then feel they are entitled to it. I am tired of welfare breeding entire classes of uneducated, non-working Americans who will never be more than a burden to the rest of the good citizens. You know, the ones paying for the welfare system. I am tired of people like you, maybe not you, who claim that those welfare systems in place are good for America. They are not.
As the providers for millions of people, the government should have the right to decide whether or not those people are allowed to breed. If not by license, then by permit. Either way, the system is the problem. Oh, welfare is a liberal system whos time has come and gone.
Quote from: Raza on October 05, 2007, 05:49:26 PM
He actually implied that you're an idiot. You inferred.
:lol:
Semantics. :lol:
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 06:29:57 PM
Fine, what have you done to serve your country?
What is wrong with me? I am tired of a huge chunk of our taxes going to fund out-of -wedlock children and their many-fathered-siblings. I am tired of those funds being given to women who have no idea how to use birthcontrol. I am tired of having several generations of children raised by the welfare system, and having them believe the government will provide for them no matter how irresponsible they are, and the government actually providing for them. I am tired of the old liberal bullshit line that being a single mother is something that should be upheld as decent and honorable. I am tired of liberals insisting that all problems can be fixed with higher taxes, and more money thrown at the problem. I am tired of people who mock any attempts to control our welfare system. I am tired of the democrats supporting every pro-welfare system that comes down the pike. I am tired of throwing money, aka our tax dollars, at people who do not appreciate it only to have them then feel they are entitled to it. I am tired of welfare breeding entire classes of uneducated, non-working Americans who will never be more than a burden to the rest of the good citizens. You know, the ones paying for the welfare system. I am tired of people like you, maybe not you, who claim that those welfare systems in place are good for America. They are not.
As the providers for millions of people, the government should have the right to decide whether or not those people are allowed to breed. If not by license, then by permit. Either way, the system is the problem. Oh, welfare is a liberal system whos time has come and gone.
To top it all off, the people that you're talking about are almost always horrible parents. I detest intergenerational welfare, and the presumption that some people have that other people are responsible for supporting the children that they have irresponsibly borne without the ability to support or raise them properly.
So generational lack of wealth is also a problem.
We can't seem to come to any agreement on this forum!
Quote from: Raza on October 05, 2007, 06:49:10 PM
So generational lack of wealth is also a problem.
We can't seem to come to any agreement on this forum!
Generational wealth is not a problem. It is not a drain on society as a whole, and has no real ill-effects on society at all. Other than people pass their estates to their families, there is no problem with it. In fact, generational wealth actually helps society by those receiving said wealth having to pay various types of income taxes for the rest of their lives.
Generational welfare, not generational lack of wealth, IS a problem. Generational lack of wealth can be addressed by those who wish to solve their own delimma. It is called a "Job." Those who wish to dig themselves out of their problems will do what is required to obtain one. When they feel they need more to better their position even further, they find a better job. It is a pretty simple solution, really. The hard part is going out and working to obtain one, something generational welfare happens to obstruct; the desire to work.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg593549#msg593549 date=1191631750
So generational lack of wealth is also a problem.
We can't seem to come to any agreement on this forum!
Get 5 people in the room, and you'll get 10 opinions. :rolleyes:
For the record, I think the idea that the government should confiscate a person's wealth because it isn't good for the people who would be inheriting it is absurd. It's not the government's job to decide that.
Whether money comes from an employer, a parent, or your fellow taxpayers (through the government), it always comes at a price. The idea that it is illegitimate to place any conditions on support from fellow taxpayers is ridiculous. As taxpayers, we have a right to decide the conditions under which we are willing to provide assistance to people. I find the denial of this concept one of the most egregious offenses that liberals commit.
Wealth is like almost anything else. It can be used for good ends or bad, and it's up to the individual. Parents who have some wealth can use it wisely to provide for a good future for their children, through good educational opportunities, etc. or they can use it to spoil their children as an extension of their own egos. I've seen both. While the most important thing a parent can pass on to a child is good values, a little money in all honesty can open up a lot of opportunities that might not otherwise be there.
It's funny how the same people who claim to want to see everybody living well seem to want to take down those who are successful. Do they not recognize that every person who is successful is one more person who is contributing to the provision of social services, rather than being a recipient of social services?
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2007, 06:39:33 PM
To top it all off, the people that you're talking about are almost always horrible parents. I detest intergenerational welfare, and the presumption that some people have that other people are responsible for supporting the children that they have irresponsibly borne without the ability to support or raise them properly.
Very good points.
Wow, make a joke here and you're hanged...
Quote from: Raza on October 05, 2007, 07:01:50 PM
Wow, make a joke here and you're hanged...
You committed a cardinal sin for posting jokes; no smilie.
Your second problem was that your joke was disguised too well.
:lol: :tounge: :cheers:
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 07:10:31 PM
You committed a cardinal sin for posting jokes; no smilie.
Your second problem was that your joke was disguised too well.
:lol: :tounge: :cheers:
:lol:
I used an exclamation point. I thought that was enough.
Quote from: Raza on October 05, 2007, 07:15:53 PM
:lol:
I used an exclamation point. I thought that was enough.
No. No. No. No. Do you not understand? All we want to see are smilies! Good Lord, man, how can you be so blind!
See below, please
See what I mean? :lol:
Wow, I cannot believe I have to make this point. I cannot believe I have to make it to a person that seems reasonably intelligent most of the time either.
There are certain basic inalienable rights common to all human beings. You simply don't fuck with them. The right to procreate is near the top of the list.
It doesn't matter one iota if people make bad decisions with that right. It matters even less if it causes inconvenience to others. It is a basic, unremovable right. Without it, you are taking away a person's standing as a human being that is equal to other human beigns. You are creating a class of untermensch.
Giving a person money does not give you the right to take away any of that person's rights. Even if a person is abusing a welfare system, it gives the state no justification whatsoever in taking away that right. It's one of those things you simply cannot fuck with.
And if we, as a country, were to do so, we would be no better than the worst totalitarian state that ever existed.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 07:28:48 PM
Wow, I cannot believe I have to make this point. I cannot believe I have to make it to a person that seems reasonably intelligent most of the time either.
There are certain basic inalienable rights common to all human beings. You simply don't fuck with them. The right to procreate is near the top of the list.
It doesn't matter one iota if people make bad decisions with that right. It matters even less if it causes inconvenience to others. It is a basic, unremovable right. Without it, you are taking away a person's standing as a human being that is equal to other human beigns. You are creating a class of untermensch.
Giving a person money does not give you the right to take away any of that person's rights. Even if a person is abusing a welfare system, it gives the state no justification whatsoever in taking away that right. It's one of those things you simply cannot fuck with.
And if we, as a country, were to do so, we would be no better than the worst totalitarian state that ever existed.
...but you can take away the money you're giving them...
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg593558#msg593558 date=1191632510
Wow, make a joke here and you're hanged...
Are you talking about my post?
I certainly didn't mean to 'hang' you.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2007, 07:31:39 PM
...but you can take away the money you're giving them...
I would have no problem with that. You cannot however, make getting whatever nmoney you give them contingent on any sort of sterilization procedure.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 07:33:23 PM
I would have no problem with that. You cannot however, make getting whatever nmoney you give them contingent on any sort of sterilization procedure.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 07:28:48 PM
Wow, I cannot believe I have to make this point. I cannot believe I have to make it to a person that seems reasonably intelligent most of the time either.
There are certain basic inalienable rights common to all human beings. You simply don't fuck with them. The right to procreate is near the top of the list.
It doesn't matter one iota if people make bad decisions with that right. It matters even less if it causes inconvenience to others. It is a basic, unremovable right. Without it, you are taking away a person's standing as a human being that is equal to other human beigns. You are creating a class of untermensch.
Giving a person money does not give you the right to take away any of that person's rights. Even if a person is abusing a welfare system, it gives the state no justification whatsoever in taking away that right. It's one of those things you simply cannot fuck with.
And if we, as a country, were to do so, we would be no better than the worst totalitarian state that ever existed.
You can, when they are receiving money from you and will demand more when there are more kids. Besides, only one person here is saying that sterilization should be required. I am only saying that the government should be able to say whether or not someone they are supporting should be able to have more kids which the government will also have to support. Once the person is off welfare, and able to support any more kids then they would no longer be under the direction of the government in that area. It does not have to be permanent, only if the government welfare recipiant choses to make it permanent.
Still waiting to hear how you have served you country. Not saying you have not, just waiting to hear how you did.
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 07:50:11 PM
You can, when they are receive money from you. Besides, only one person here is saying that sterilization should be required. I am only saying that the government should be able to say whether or not someone they are supporting should be able to have more kids which the government will also have to support. Once the person is off welfare, and able to support any more kids then they would no longer be under the direction of the government in that area. It does not have to be permanent, only if the government welfare recipiant choses to make it permanent.
Still waiting to hear how you have served you country. Not saying you have not, just waiting to hear how you did.
I'm not going to answer that question, because it has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, and I refuse to play the "oh you're not able to make that statement because you haven't earned the right to say that" game. I'm a citizen of the United States (and no, Hdog, I'm not a convicted felon either, thanks for that insinuation as well), and that's all that's required here; if that.
No, giving somebody money does not give you any rights over them. It most certainly does not give you that right. Putting a cap on the number of children the welfare system would pay for per parent might be as far as I could concievably go in regards to this.
In no case, under no circumstances however should the government of any country claim jurisdiction over any person's right to reproduce. Period.
I do hold some truths to be self-evident, and one is that people have certain inalienable rights endowed by their creator. You've heard those words many times I'm sure, have you ever really considered what they mean?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 07:59:18 PM
I'm not going to answer that question, because it has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, and I refuse to play the "oh you're not able to make that statement because you haven't earned the right to say that" game. I'm a citizen of the United States (and no, Hdog, I'm not a convicted felon either, thanks for that insinuation as well), and that's all that's required here; if that.
No, giving somebody money does not give you any rights over them. It most certainly does not give you that right. Putting a cap on the number of children the welfare system would pay for per parent might be as far as I could concievably go in regards to this.
In no case, under no circumstances however should the government of any country claim jurisdiction over any person's right to reproduce. Period.
I do hold some truths to be self-evident, and one is that people have certain inalienable rights endowed by their creator. You've heard those words many times I'm sure, have you ever really considered what they mean?
I did not say anything about anyone not being able to make a statement because they have not served. I was saying that those who have, have a different perspective. And, if you will not say it, I have to assume you did not do it. Those who have understand what I mean.
Having been convicted of a crime does not mean you are a felon. Plus, I was only saying I do not know anything about you, only that you do something with photosperic eyes.
And, yes, I have heard those words a few times in my life. However, I am pretty sure that is does not say anything about bearing children while on welfare. Guns, yes.
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 08:11:30 PM
I did not say anything about anyone not being able to make a statement because they have not served. I was saying that those who have, have a different perspective. And, if you will not say it, I have to assume you did not do it. Those who have understand what I mean.
Having been convicted of a crime does not mean you are a felon. Plus, I was only saying I do not know anything about you, only that you do something with photosperic eyes.
And, yes, I have heard those words a few times in my life. However, I am pretty sure that is does not say anything about bearing children while on welfare. Guns, yes.
So, what part of your government service has changed your perspective on reproductive rights?
Focus on the part that says "endowed by their creator."
I know you're a christian, so this should be easy for you.
What's the first thing god tells Adam and Eve to do?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 07:33:23 PM
I would have no problem with that. You cannot however, make getting whatever nmoney you give them contingent on any sort of sterilization procedure.
I don't advocate sterilization. But I don't think anybody has a right to state support for their kids. It's one thing to help people who have fallen into a bad circumstance through no fault of their own -- that I would gladly do. But I really do resent people who have children that they never had any chance of supporting, usually under highly questionable circumstances, and then asserting that (A) they have a 'right' to my money; and (B) that I (and people like me) are somehow responsible for the poor upbringing that their children get.
I don't view welfare mothers as victims at all in most cases, and I hold them in very low regard, in general. Aside from the money, I think most of them are horrible parents, and the statistics bear this out.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2007, 08:20:27 PM
I don't advocate sterilization. But I don't think anybody has a right to state support for their kids. It's one thing to help people who have fallen into a bad circumstance through no fault of their own -- that I would gladly do. But I really do resent people who have children that they never had any chance of supporting, usually under highly questionable circumstances, and then asserting that (A) they have a 'right' to my money; and (B) that I (and people like me) are somehow responsible for the poor upbringing that their children get.
I don't view welfare mothers as victims at all in most cases, and I hold them in very low regard, in general. Aside from the money, I think most of them are horrible parents, and the statistics bear this out.
I'm not advocating for welfare mothers here, nor am I defending the welfare system in the least. I think the system is quite bad and I agree with many of your above statements.
There are however, lines we cannot cross, line we most not cross if we are to take any of the values that have made this country great seriously.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 08:15:24 PM
So, what part of your government service has changed your perspective on reproductive rights?
Focus on the part that says "endowed by their creator."
I know you're a christian, so this should be easy for you.
What's the first thing god tells Adam and Eve to do?
Police work.
The portion of "endowed by their creator" does not reference welfare. Therefore, it can not stop what I have suggested in its current form. At least until the USSC decides otherwise.
True, Job did tell Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. But, that is entirely different. Please see "betrothed" in the Bible. Eve was created "for" Adam, a union considered equal to men as God allowed it, created it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 08:27:27 PM
I'm not advocating for welfare mothers here, nor am I defending the welfare system in the least. I think the system is quite bad and I agree with many of your above statements.
There are however, lines we cannot cross, line we most not cross if we are to take any of the values that have made this country great seriously.
I agree with you. I just can't bring myself to say anything supportive of welfare mothers without pointing out what I really think of them.
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 08:32:05 PM
Police work.
The portion of "endowed by their creator" does not reference welfare. Therefore, it can not stop what I have suggested in its current form. At least until the USSC decides otherwise.
True, Job did tell Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. But, that is entirely different. Please see "betrothed" in the Bible. Eve was created "for" Adam, a union considered equal to men as God allowed it, created it.
No, what "endowed by their creator" along with "inalienable rights" means is that our rights do not exist because the government allows us to have them. They exist because they were endowed by our creator and are integral to our humanity; whether or not they are acknowledged in the lawbooks or not they cannot be taken away.
Whether or not people are on welfare is immaterial.
So, you'd rather the government tell you what religious beliefs it will and will not condone or codify? I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve didn't have a marriage license, even if God betrothed them.
Isn't there something in the bill of rights that mentions "the establishment of a religion?"
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2007, 08:34:17 PM
I agree with you. I just can't bring myself to say anything supportive of welfare mothers without pointing out what I really think of them.
I think its important that we not let our opinion of a certain group of people make us forget our own values.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 08:41:11 PM
No, what "endowed by their creator" along with "inalienable rights" means is that our rights do not exist because the government allows us to have them. They exist because they were endowed by our creator and are integral to our humanity; whether or not they are acknowledged in the lawbooks or not they cannot be taken away.
Whether or not people are on welfare is immaterial.
So, you'd rather the government tell you what religious beliefs it will and will not condone or codify? I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve didn't have a marriage license, even if God betrothed them.
Isn't there something in the bill of rights that mentions "the establishment of a religion?"
#1, where I wrote "equal to men" it was supposed to read, "equal to marriage." But you seemed to understand that, anyway.
You comments about the government telling me what religious beliefs.... does not make sense to me. I do not see it as being relevant to this topic, but I may be missing something. They may be rights, but as a citizen of this great country, I and many millions of others feel that the government should have a say in how many kids these people can have. At least to the extent that we will not pay for kids born beyond what the woman had when she was granted welfare at the beginning. Welfare, under its current state, promotes promiscuity and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Something that tens of millions vehimently disagree with.
Besides, if the government votes it into law and it is not reversed by the USSC, than it apparently can be taken away. Just like the liberals are trying to do with the Constitution regarding firearms. But, that topic is another argument for another day!
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 08:56:07 PM
#1, where I wrote "equal to men" it was supposed to read, "equal to marriage." But you seemed to understand that, anyway.
You comments about the government telling me what religious beliefs.... does not make sense to me. I do not see it as being relevant to this topic, but I may be missing something. They may be rights, but as a citizen of this great country, I and many millions of others feel that the government should have a say in how many kids these people can have. At least to the extent that we will not pay for kids born beyond what the woman had when she was granted welfare.
Besides, if the government votes it into law and it is not reversed by the USSC, than it apparently can be taken away. Just like the liberals are trying to do with the Constitution regarding firearms. But, that topic is another argument for another day!
We can and should have a say in how many kids we're going to help pay for, but not in how many they should have.
What I was getting at with the religious statements was: religious beliefs are held somewhat sancrosanct in this country: even to the extent that we let certain people deny their kids lifesavin medical treatments because of their beliefs. We have the long standing value that man's law should not negate god's law. I beleive it's one of the core moral values that this country was founded upon.
Even if the government votes a law into existence and the USSC doesn ot strike it down, it can still be a bad law: a wrong law, and what Jefferson was getting at when he wrote those words was that there are certain rights that will continue to exist even when exercising them is against the law because the law has no authority to take them away.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 09:03:54 PM
We can and should have a say in how many kids we're going to help pay for, but not in how many they should have.
What I was getting at with the religious statements was: religious beliefs are held somewhat sancrosanct in this country: even to the extent that we let certain people deny their kids lifesavin medical treatments because of their beliefs. We have the long standing value that man's law should not negate god's law. I beleive it's one of the core moral values that this country was founded upon.
Even if the government votes a law into existence and the USSC doesn ot strike it down, it can still be a bad law: a wrong law, and what Jefferson was getting at when he wrote those words was that there are certain rights that will continue to exist even when exercising them is against the law because the law has no authority to take them away.
That is the beauty of the original Constitution. It is all open to interpretation. My interpretation is different from yours based entirely on my life experiences, which are obviously much different than yours.
I see the right wing nutjobs are out in full force today...
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 09:06:20 PM
That is the beauty of the original Constitution. It is all open to interpretation. My interpretation is different from yours based entirely on my life experiences, which are obviously much different than yours.
Do your life experiences include reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers? If not, it should.
Quote from: dsred on October 05, 2007, 09:08:18 PM
I see the right wing nutjobs are out in full force today...
Same with the retards....
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 05, 2007, 09:08:19 PM
Do your life experiences include reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers? If not, it should.
It does not. In fact, I had not heard about them until now.
dsred writes:
I see the right wing nutjobs are out in full force today...hounddog replies:
QuoteSame with the retards....
But I repeat myself. . . (with apologies to Mark Twain) :devil:
Quote from: hounddog on October 05, 2007, 09:10:40 PM
It does not. In fact, I had not heard about them until now.
They're the arguments that helped frame the constitution and really lend some insight into what was intended.
The reasonings between most modern political arguments were handled there one way or another.
Alright, Soup, let's look at things from a different standpoint.
First, we'll deal with the realistic side of welfare. While it's all fine and good to say that the government has the right to refuse welfare if someone has additional children while receiving government assistance, we also know that, realistically, refusing that assistance to a newborn child because their parents use the child to leech off of the government is counterproductive to the entire system of welfare.
So, let's look at it from a contractual standpoint. Let's make welfare a contract between the government and the recipient. The terms of the contract would have to be acceptable to both parties and both have the right to refuse the contract if those terms are unacceptable. On the same aspect, a person can legally give up their rights through a contractual agreement if they so desire.
The welfare contract should be limited in time...I'd say 5 years max if not less (if you can't find a job to pay the bills in 5 years, you just aren't trying). The government agrees to pay the recipient's food (food stamps) and shelter/utilities (government-subsidized housing), basically providing the recipient with their most basic needs. In return, the recipient promises to become a productive member of society in that 5 year period. Oh, and, while under that contract, the recipient promises not to have any more children (who would have to be supported by the government as well). Because it would be unfair to any "accidental" kids to not provide them with welfare, the recipient agrees to submit to non-perminent birth control (Norplant, for example) at the government's expense. We can even do this...the government cannot cancel the contract for anything but fraud, but the recipient has the right to cancel the contract at any time, with any reversal expenses to be paid for by the government.
Now, with that, it's not a rights issue. It's a contractual issue. Both sides want something and have to voluntarily give up something to get what they want. It's, basically, just like we all do at a job. We want a paycheck. Our employer wants a task performed. While we're performing that task for pay, our right to freedom of movement is restricted (ie, most of us can't just leave work whenever we want to and expect to get paid). We've entered into a contractual agreement that benefits both sides, and have given up something for it.
Sound fair?
Yes.
Except the part about forcing women to take birth control. You can't force people to take drugs.
Quote from: Psilos on October 06, 2007, 03:01:10 AM
Except the part about forcing women to take birth control. You can't force people to take drugs.
First of all, Norplant isn't "taking drugs." Norplant is an implanted, reversable, time-release birth control. There's pretty much nothing to it.
Second, there's no "forcing" about it. Like I said, the recipient is entering into a contract with the government. That's a stipulation of the contract, kinda like you agree to limit your freedom of movement while at work and, in exchange, you get a paycheck. You still possess the right to go wherever you want when you're working, but your employer also has the right to fire you so you don't get your paycheck. Same thing here...the recipient has the right to not use birth control and pop out as many kids as they want, but the government also has the right to not give them welfare benefits.
The whole point is to decrease the number of people on welfare overall, prevent generational welfare recipients, and get people off of welfare and back into the workforce (which is what welfare was originally created to do). As it stands now, welfare is an unending cycle for most recipients, and they don't want to go out and get a job. Many of them actually have more kids so that they can receive more welfare benefits! It's free handouts with no strings attached.
So how is birth controlled if not by drugs? Something is released by time, so, what? I'm fine with cutting people from Welfare if they start having more kids they can't support (though arguments for the other side are good enough to prevent me from voting for such a thing), but including birth control as part of the contract is just as bad as including sterilization, even if it is impermanent. Providing free birth control that's easy to get, accompanied with some education about it, is more like it.
Quote from: Psilos on October 06, 2007, 12:52:19 PM
So how is birth controlled if not by drugs? Something is released by time, so, what? I'm fine with cutting people from Welfare if they start having more kids they can't support (though arguments for the other side are good enough to prevent me from voting for such a thing), but including birth control as part of the contract is just as bad as including sterilization, even if it is impermanent. Providing free birth control that's easy to get, accompanied with some education about it, is more like it.
Education really isn't the answer unfortunately, because the problem with these people is not really lack of knowledge but foul attitude. Even with the right knowledge, many of them will still choose to do the wrong thing.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 06, 2007, 03:43:28 PM
Education really isn't the answer unfortunately, because the problem with these people is not really lack of knowledge but foul attitude. Even with the right knowledge, many of them will still choose to do the wrong thing.
Why doesn't education work?
What is the "wrong thing"?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=10956.msg594132#msg594132 date=1191707073
Why doesn't education work?
What is the "wrong thing"?
For education to work, you have to have the right attitude. It's naive to assume that everybody will do the right thing if only they know what that is. Some people will always choose to do wrong.
Choosing to have kids that you can't support, and don't have the emotional stability or maturity to give a proper upbringing to, is the 'wrong thing.'
Maybe they're being educated by self-righteous duckwads, so they're not listening. (That was going to be "dickwads", but I mistyped and like "duckwads" better. :lol:).
Even if we assume that education won't work, it's still not OK to force people to take birth control.
Quote from: Psilos on October 06, 2007, 04:15:37 PM
Maybe they're being educated by self-righteous duckwads, so they're not listening. (That was going to be "dickwads", but I mistyped and like "duckwads" better. :lol:).
or maybe they're just stupid.....
and maybe we've been stupid for rewarding their behavior for so long..
Stupid implies no capacity for learning, or intelligence. Ignorant is the word you want.
Quote from: Psilos on October 06, 2007, 04:39:13 PM
Stupid implies no capacity for learning, or intelligence. Ignorant is the word you want.
some are both....
Sure, but that's a big generalization to make.
Quote from: Psilos on October 06, 2007, 04:42:10 PM
Sure, but that's a big generalization to make.
I have known some people like that. Some of my relatives are like that. I could tell you a very bad story about my cousin. Believe me, it's true.
But not for everyone on Welfare. In fact, it's too big of a generalization to say that everyone on Welfare is ignorant, even.
Quote from: Psilos on October 06, 2007, 04:54:59 PM
But not for everyone on Welfare. In fact, it's too big of a generalization to say that everyone on Welfare is ignorant, even.
I never meant everyone. But in reality, what I said would probably apply to a pretty high percentage.
I have a cousin who is a lazy stupid welfare queen who just had an illegimate baby. She's scamming narcotic pain killers from her doctor (she has back trouble because she's 300 pounds), and she gives those narcotic pain killers to a minor as payment for babysitting her child (in her filthy apartment) while she goes out drinking. See what I mean?
Yeah, she's a turd.
But that's not fair to the people you don't hear about who aren't scamming the system.
I'm sure there's no way to to get a conclusive number, but I'm interested in seeing the number of legitimate welfare recipients, and how long they receive benefits til they move on. The liberal in me (sorry Dave :lol:) does agree that we should provide limited assistance towards truly deserving people, but I not thrilled to see my tax dollars supporting the abusers. I don't know enough about the system to have solutions, but some sort of regulation (proof of serious job search, accounting for monies provided, etc.) needs to be met for people to continue to receive benefits. I'm tired of seeing welfare recipients driving nice cars and owning expensive electronic items.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 06, 2007, 05:03:07 PM
I never meant everyone. But in reality, what I said would probably apply to a pretty high percentage.
I have a cousin who is a lazy stupid welfare queen who just had an illegimate baby. She's scamming narcotic pain killers from her doctor (she has back trouble because she's 300 pounds), and she gives those narcotic pain killers to a minor as payment for babysitting her child (in her filthy apartment) while she goes out drinking. See what I mean?
Oxycodone or vicodin? Does she need another babysitter?
Quote from: The Pirate on October 06, 2007, 05:18:05 PM
I'm sure there's no way to to get a conclusive number, but I'm interested in seeing the number of legitimate welfare recipients, and how long they receive benefits til they move on. The liberal in me (sorry Dave :lol:) does agree that we should provide limited assistance towards truly deserving people, but I not thrilled to see my tax dollars supporting the abusers. I don't know enough about the system to have solutions, but some sort of regulation (proof of serious job search, accounting for monies provided, etc.) needs to be met for people to continue to receive benefits. I'm tired of seeing welfare recipients driving nice cars and owning expensive electronic items.
I have no problem with assistance for deserving people.
But you have to recognize that the problem with the whole system is endemic. In attempting to help the poor, we have set up a system that rewards the behaviors that lead to poverty. We have turned poverty from an economic condition that would probably be temporary into a intergenerational social cataclysm. Unwittingly, we have established the poor under a separate culture and lifestyle that is repulsive to the rest of society. We are now caught in a vicious cycle in which the poor cannot improve their lives without greater interaction with the rest of society, but their lifestyle/values are so repulsive to the rest of society that people erect every barrier they can to avoid contact with them.
It wasn't always this way. My dad grew up poor, but back then, that didn't necessarily mean a dysfunctional family, bad schools, contact only with other dysfunctional people, etc. as it largely does not. He lived in a decent town and went to decent schools, and graduated from Columbia University. He didn't have to go to violent schools and grow up surrounded by drug dealers as a result of his family's lack of financial resources. His family's lifestyle/values were no different from those of people of greater financial means. As a result, poverty then wasn't the limiting factor that it has become.
The welfare system has contributed to making poverty a more devastating and virulent disease, rather than just an economic condition, and as such is fundamentally flawed. The problem is not really just the fact that some people abuse the system, but that the system is set up to actually encourage that abuse and pathological behavior on a grand scale.
Part of my anger and disgust with the welfare system is actually due to sympathy toward the innocent victims such as children who get caught up in living under terrible conditions surrounded by bad influences because of the flaws in our system. Sometimes, a little cruelty can be the greatest kindness, and a lot of intended kindness can be the greatest cruelty.
If you have a roof over your head, food to eat, and clothes to wear, then you aren't poor. In fact you're richer than 90% of the world. You just don't have much disposable income.
What has thread come to now? We were talking about traffic enforcement. Get back to it.
Education only works if the people being educated want to learn. And, that's assuming that those people don't already possess (and disregard) knowledge about birth control. The truth of the matter is, there are welfare recipients who intentionally have more kids to get more welfare. And, as I said, it's unfair to punish a child because the parent is using him/her to scam the system. So, the only realistic solution is to prevent people on welfare from increasing the number of welfare recipients though procreation is required birth control. And, again, I'm not implying that we should force anyone to not have kids. They can have as many kids as they want...but they shouldn't be allowed to be on welfare and do it. If a person wants to breed a marching army of little brats, then they should have the financial ability to do so. It's commonly called "responsability."
As for the number of people who are abusing the welfare system, I don't have any kind of hard numbers. I can tell you that, in my experience, it's probably a high percentage. As a police officer, I deal with alot of people in alot of low income/government subsidized housing, and we commonly refer to them as "regular customers." They abuse the system. I thought the system was screwed up long before I got into law enforcement, though. I was a cashier in a large grocery store that was on the outskirts of a large city in high school. The first week of the month was "foodstamp week." I stood there, making minimum wage, and watched people but literally cartfulls of steaks and pay in foodstamps. Many of these people were dressed in designer clothing (including quite a few leather and fur coats) and drove pretty nice vehicles. My parents...middle class people with four kids...fed us hamburger and we only got designer clothes if they were on sale. From then on, I knew the system was screwed up.
Quote from: The Pirate on October 06, 2007, 05:18:05 PM
I don't know enough about the system to have solutions, but some sort of regulation (proof of serious job search, accounting for monies provided, etc.) needs to be met for people to continue to receive benefits.
Michigan requires that right now- but it's noly enforced as a question on a form- "have you applied for work within x number or days?"
All they hadve to do is mark the yes and make up a couple of companies they claim to applied for- and no follow up is done by the welfare people. Welfare is a joke-
How did this get to welfare anyway? Pretty cool that this thread is so interesting to people.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2007, 12:28:19 AM
Education only works if the people being educated want to learn. And, that's assuming that those people don't already possess (and disregard) knowledge about birth control. The truth of the matter is, there are welfare recipients who intentionally have more kids to get more welfare.
These people get educatefd in school about birth control in the 6th grade and every person on the planet above the age of 8 knows about sex- education isn't the answer. And in Michigan women are actually often encouraged to have more kids when they're on welfare- my old neighbor was told by her caseworker that she would double her allowance if she had another kid because it put her in the 3-5 kid group. WTF is wrong with that?
Quote from: rohan on October 07, 2007, 12:29:08 AM
Michigan requires that right now- but it's noly enforced as a question on a form- "have you applied for work within x number or days?"
All they hadve to do is mark the yes and make up a couple of companies they claim to applied for- and no follow up is done by the welfare people. Welfare is a joke-
Even if they do followups, it's not like it's difficult to beat the system. They just apply for jobs that they have no chance of getting and aren't qualified for.
QuoteHow did this get to welfare anyway? Pretty cool that this thread is so interesting to people.
I'm not exactly sure how we got onto welfare. I may have contributed to the death of the traffic portion of this thread when I went off on James Young...
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2007, 12:33:29 AM
Even if they do followups, it's not like it's difficult to beat the system. They just apply for jobs that they have no chance of getting and aren't qualified for.
I'm not exactly sure how we got onto welfare. I may have contributed to the death of the traffic portion of this thread when I went off on James Young...
I dont' care where it goes- I think it's cool that people are just that interested in this whole thing. I didn't realize that the people here are so knowlegable- it makes me feel pretty stupid!
Actually, we all just make this shit up. I don't know a damn thing, but my vocabulary makes it sound like I'm intelligent...
:cheers:
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2007, 12:39:30 AM
Actually, we all just make this shit up. I don't know a damn thing, but my vocabulary makes it sound like I'm intelligent...
Not
that intelligent...
:lol:
(You set yourself up for that one)
After owning a 10 unit apartment building for a time, I came to the simple conclusion that poor people simply choose to be poor; a choice that is increasingly easier to make with the ever burgening welfare state. IMO, by far and away the number choice is having children out of wedlock.
There will always be poor people - the demographic bell curve is simply an inherent basic fact of the human condition. Leftism's profound failure on the subject begins with rejecting this simple principle.
A while back I gave up on putting much effort into thinking too much about the subject. I've just accepted that it's a natural progression that the US will slide further and further into a (more) socialist state. Simply look to Europe and Canada for the US's fate on the subject. <SHIVERS>
The altruistic actions of trying to flatten the demographic bell curve is in practice a hegemonic class war against the top 80%. It's a war that is somewhat succeeding IMO - just look to the current state of the US House and Senate (DNC control), and the comments of the DNC '08 presidential contenders.
My efforts are far better spent just trying to MYOB myself into an insulating finanical cocoon.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/DSAM-logo-blue1.png)
I have no reason for posting that- I just like it. :lol: :pullover: :pullover:
We're runnnig another weekend of multiple traffic cars again- I'll let you know the results later. This weekend we have 3 traffic enforcement only cars on 2 shifts a day for 4 days.
This thread is too long. *yawn*
Quote from: rohan on November 04, 2007, 08:22:35 AM
We're runnnig another weekend of multiple traffic cars again- I'll let you know the results later. This weekend we have 3 traffic enforcement only cars on 2 shifts a day for 4 days.
There are only three results that matter: the fatality rate, the injury rate and the crash rate, each per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Please let us know what those rates were before this mini-campaign and then after.
Quote from: James Young on November 04, 2007, 09:00:04 AM
There are only three results that matter: the fatality rate, the injury rate and the crash rate, each per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Please let us know what those rates were before this mini-campaign and then after.
Well they;'re OWI enforcement grant cars so that's not even close to the only thing that matters. But that's not a bad idea- I'll see if I can come up some info on that. But we're not targeting "everyday" types of crash areas we're focusing on drunk driving - other vehicle/alcohol like open intox- and some other safety stuff but that's not our focus so not sure how that's going to matter?
I guess I forgot this post during my ?unretirement? and return to work, my move and computer replacement.
bing_oh writes on 10/5/07:
QuoteMalfeasance, incompetence, and hypocricy?!?! Why the fuck do I even bother responding to you, James? I try to hold a civil discussion and you accuse me and all other police of being narrow-minded, criminal idiots.
So the public shouldn?t point out malfeasance, incompetence and hypocrisy within law enforcement because to do so is an accusation of narrow-mindedness and criminality of
all officers? I don?t think so because to inhibit exposure of wrongdoing and prevent criticism of a public institution undermines the very concepts that the police were created to protect. Our job as citizens is to observe, comment and work to correct such unacceptable ? many times even
criminal -- behavior. While that includes your role as citizen, you also bear even greater responsibility to expose and correct such bad behavior because of your commission granted by us. Great authority carries great responsibility.
Disagreement is hardly incivility. I don?t attack you personally but your mistaken beliefs, your unsupported allegations, and your refusal to examine alternative explanations.
QuoteBravo. You figured out how to operate within the system. Why are you still on a message board bitching instead of continuing your lobbying to the politicos?
I still lobby in several places and support others who do so at the federal level. Message boards can be important to that lobbying effort because somebody who reads what I have to say here may begin to realize that the conventional wisdom is wrong and alter their thinking or their approach to the problem. Public discourse is drifting into more individual media, Internet forums rather than letters to the editor, niche-market cable rather than CBS, and blogs rather than books.
QuoteI got to watch some of the video footage from Rodney King that the media never thought was good enough for public dissemination. I got to hear the reports from the first officer on the scene, a female, who almost SHOT King before her supervisor showed up on the scene. I watched the "beating" and compaired it to the training for the PR24 baton, realizing that the officers were poorly trained on that particular weapon, were using it incorrectly and contrary to its proper use, and were using it on a man with high levels of cocaine in his system. I got to watch video of Rodney King STANDING UP WITH 6 OFFICERS ON HIS BACK!!! Rodney king was the biggest bunch of media-induced, whitewashed bullshit of the 20th century!
Rodney King is a very limited individual, borderline retarded with an IQ of 84 and certainly incapable of rational decisions. However, Rodney King isn?t the important factor in this entire episode. The important factor present here that was absent in 20+ years of prior allegations of police abuse is George Holliday?s video tape. Until the tape surfaced on KTLA, LAPD treated the King arrest as ?just another [minority] resisting arrest.? And I have seen the
whole original tape during some graduate classes at UCLA.
That first female officer ? Chippie-trainee Melanie Singer ? had her gun drawn with King in position with his hands on the roof of the car but it was LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon who took over and immediately tasered King, telling Officer Singer that they would take care of it from there. King was certainly disrespectful ? waving at the helicopter and grabbing his butt ? but disrespect is hardly a crime except in the minds of cops.
The tape was undeniable proof that the allegations were true, that LAPD (and other regional agencies) were abusing minorities. Here was proof of officers kicking a suspect, something that they had denied.
Once again we have an officer trying to excuse the beating by retreating to jargon ? ?training for the PR24 baton? ? and unsubstantiated claims. King was intoxicated on alcohol. However, toxicology results show that he had no PCP in his system contrary to the usual claims of police apologists and the specific allegations of Sgt. Koon who called King ?dusted.? We do not know if he tested positive for cocaine.
Trying to turn this into mutual combat rather than an uncontrolled savage beating has been the
sine qua non of police apologists since the event. The emphasis has been on justifying what we did see because of what we did not see but is merely alleged.
What the police refuse to understand is that this is not what we the public want to see from them. The behavior exhibited on the tape is unacceptable and can be neither justified nor even rationalized. To me, the saddest part of this whole sorry episode is that instead of using the incident as a wakeup call and correcting policy, procedure and actual behavior to comport more closely with societal wishes and benefit, law enforcement continues to try to justify actions that the rest of the world condemns.
"Viewed from the outside, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video." George H. W. Bush
QuoteRodney King, a very large violent crack addict, should have been shot when the first officer arrived on the scene.
Now, that is frightening. Are you sure that you want to assume the role of judge, jury and executioner as well as officer?
BTW, the very first officers ? Chippies Tim and Melanie Singer ? reported that King was ?speeding? on the 210 at an estimated but unmeasured 120 mph in his Hyundai Excell, a car limited to about 80 mph. Melanie later altered her story during testimony that the actual chase speeds were ?50 mph? and that King had stopped for a traffic signal after exiting the freeway. Thus, the entire stop was predicated upon false premises.
QuoteLet's talk about the LA Riots. Yea, that was all about Rodney King and pent-up racial discord. No better way to show your outrage over racial mistreatment than to BURN NEIGHBORHOODS COMPRISED MOSTLY OF MINORITY RESIDENTS, right? Yea, nothing says "we want better treatment" than stealing TV's. Want to know why the LAPD didn't respond to your calls during the riots? BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERWHELMED WITH TRYING TO CONTROL RIOTS!!!! Even the largest police forces in the nation are miniscule compaired to the number of people that they police.
Do not assume that I agree with the rioters? actions; I do not. Let?s see your evidence that LAPD was ?overwhelmed with trying to control riots.? They were not; they abandoned the area.
Also, do not overlook the arrogance of LAPD, the change of venue to Simi Valley, where many LAPD cops live, the stacked jury, and the sham trial. The very idea that they could and should get away with it is stunning.
QuoteLet's talk about Waco. . . .Don't spout off the conspiracy theory bullshit...I'm not swallowing it.
Glad to see that you?re so open-minded about learning from mistakes. . .
QuoteI'm done with your crap, James. I'm done pounding my head into the wall. I'm done with taking your snide comments and your insults. Argue with somebody else.
Respond or don?t. My goal here is hardly to elicit specific responses but to present a different perspective to those who would otherwise not even hear it much less consider anything outside that same tired old institutional mantra. If the truth is snide and insulting then so be it.
Quote from: James Young on November 04, 2007, 12:46:34 PM
I guess I forgot this post during my “unretirement” and return to work, my move and computer replacement.
bing_oh writes on 10/5/07:
So the public shouldn’t point out malfeasance, incompetence and hypocrisy within law enforcement because to do so is an accusation of narrow-mindedness and criminality of all officers?
No but calling all cops stupid and uneducated is insulting.
I made it home from a trip to Boston without any tickets, despite going well over the speed limit almost the whole way..... :praise:
How's that for the effectiveness of traffic enforcment? :rastaman:
Quote from: dazzleman on November 04, 2007, 06:24:33 PM
I made it home from a trip to Boston without any tickets, despite going well over the speed limit almost the whole way..... :praise:
How's that for the effectiveness of traffic enforcment? :rastaman:
Only problem with rubbing it in is at some point you know youre gonna get screwed :lol:
Now that I changed jobs (used to work from home) I now commute ~60 miles a day (have been doing so for the last month). I never do the speed limit, and at least a couple times each way I use the carpool lane to zip around left lane slow pokes. I certainly have it coming, but a ticket every so often is worth keeping pace with traffic or otherwise being prudent.
rohan writes:
QuoteNo but calling all cops stupid and uneducated is insulting.
If find such a person, I?ll condemn them. While we enjoy many rights as human beings, not being insulted is not one of them.
Make no doubt, there are stupid and uneducated cops just as there are stupid and uneducated lawyers, teachers and artists. However, as a rule, cops are better educated and brighter than the populace as a whole. My issue is not with their abilities but with their performance and their refusal to clean up their own house. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Every day we?re assaulted with news of police incompetence or corruption ? not to mention the overzealous enforcement of superfluous laws ? and extremely rarely does exposure come at the hands of other cops. Pointing that out is hardly insulting.
Quote from: J86 on November 04, 2007, 06:46:37 PM
Only problem with rubbing it in is at some point you know youre gonna get screwed :lol:
I know, but it's still worth it. I can handle it, man.... :evildude:
Quote from: GoCougs on November 04, 2007, 06:47:41 PM
Now that I changed jobs (used to work from home) I now commute ~60 miles a day (have been doing so for the last month). I never do the speed limit, and at least a couple times each way I use the carpool lane to zip around left lane slow pokes. I certainly have it coming, but a ticket every so often is worth keeping pace with traffic or otherwise being prudent.
From what you've said in the past, I never got the impression that you were a lead-foot. I got the impression that you're the type of guy who does 10 mph or less over the speed limit.
I agree with you that a ticket every so often is worth it, in order to be able to maintain a reasonable speed.
Quote from: dazzleman on November 04, 2007, 07:14:48 PM
I know, but it's still worth it. I can handle it, man.... :evildude:
I know you can! It's us poor starving college kids who cant!!
Quote from: J86 on November 04, 2007, 07:19:09 PM
I know you can! It's us poor starving college kids who cant!!
That doesn't seem to stop you from indulging your disordus rightus footus.....guys like you just can't help living on the edge... :evildude:
Quote from: dazzleman on November 04, 2007, 07:20:44 PM
That doesn't seem to stop you from indulging your disordus rightus footus.....guys like you just can't help living on the edge... :evildude:
That's gonna hafta be on hold for a bit, right now it's deer 1, Accord 0
Quote from: James Young on November 04, 2007, 06:48:28 PM
rohan writes:
If find such a person, I?ll condemn them. While we enjoy many rights as human beings, not being insulted is not one of them.
Make no doubt, there are stupid and uneducated cops just as there are stupid and uneducated lawyers, teachers and artists. However, as a rule, cops are better educated and brighter than the populace as a whole. My issue is not with their abilities but with their performance and their refusal to clean up their own house. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Every day we?re assaulted with news of police incompetence or corruption ? not to mention the overzealous enforcement of superfluous laws ? and extremely rarely does exposure come at the hands of other cops. Pointing that out is hardly insulting.
Incompetence is a government trademark and the police are not immune from it. Unfortunately, unlike good private sector companies, government doesn't put the resources into leadership and management development that it should. I believe most of the organizational problems stem from that and the fact that unions stifle any progress in that direction because it often ties in directly to accountability. But, I've been involved with local government both at work and the town I live in to realize that taxpayers don't value a higher level of training for managers either. No one wants to pay for it. So, in a round about way that adage about getting the government one deserves is true on this level also.
Quote from: Catman on November 05, 2007, 06:08:11 PM
Incompetence is a government trademark and the police are not immune from it. Unfortunately, unlike good private sector companies, government doesn't put the resources into leadership and management development that it should. I believe most of the organizational problems stem from that and the fact that unions stifle any progress in that direction because it often ties in directly to accountability. But, I've been involved with local government both at work and the town I live in to realize that taxpayers don't value a higher level of training for managers either. No one wants to pay for it. So, in a round about way that adage about getting the government one deserves is true on this level also.
People definitely get the government they deserve. The major achilles heel to self-government is that most of the public is notoriously short-sighted. They don't want to deal with any problem until it's a crisis. The training is a perfect issue; the public doesn't want to pay for it, but then will complain about the effects from the lack of it.
OTOH, you can't blame everything on the public. Much of government is inherently wasteful, and that has made the public skeptical when government tells them something is 'needed.'
Quote from: GoCougs on November 04, 2007, 06:47:41 PM
Now that I changed jobs (used to work from home) I now commute ~60 miles a day (have been doing so for the last month). I never do the speed limit, and at least a couple times each way I use the carpool lane to zip around left lane slow pokes. I certainly have it coming, but a ticket every so often is worth keeping pace with traffic or otherwise being prudent.
GoPubes, don't use the carpool lane. Only jackasses do that. :nono:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 05, 2007, 09:51:36 PM
GoPubes, don't use the carpool lane. Only jackasses do that. :nono:
He uses carpool lanes to pass people, not to commute in. Hell, I've used shoulders before when I was really in a hurry.
Quote from: Raza on November 05, 2007, 10:07:50 PM
He uses carpool lanes to pass people, not to commute in. Hell, I've used shoulders before when I was really in a hurry.
Passing on shoulders... sometimes you just have no choice. :thumbsup:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 05, 2007, 09:51:36 PM
GoPubes, don't use the carpool lane. Only jackasses do that. :nono:
If I lived in an area that had carpool lanes: and one that also opened them up to hybrid vehicles: I would have no choice but to buy an older Insight and swap an ITR engine into it...
Quote from: dazzleman on November 05, 2007, 06:52:14 PM
People definitely get the government they deserve. The major achilles heel to self-government is that most of the public is notoriously short-sighted. They don't want to deal with any problem until it's a crisis. The training is a perfect issue; the public doesn't want to pay for it, but then will complain about the effects from the lack of it.
OTOH, you can't blame everything on the public. Much of government is inherently wasteful, and that has made the public skeptical when government tells them something is 'needed.'
It's true that much of the government is inherently wasteful...usually the bigger the government, the more waste there is. That inherent waste not only makes the public cynical but hurts the "worker bees" in government who actually do the nuts and bolts work that serves the public directly. After all, do you think the high muckamucks in their ivory towers do without when the funding gets cut because the public has become cynical with overspending? Nope. It's the actual workers who go without...and have to keep doing the jobs that the public needs without proper resources.
Quote from: bing_oh on November 05, 2007, 11:44:34 PM
It's true that much of the government is inherently wasteful...usually the bigger the government, the more waste there is. That inherent waste not only makes the public cynical but hurts the "worker bees" in government who actually do the nuts and bolts work that serves the public directly. After all, do you think the high muckamucks in their ivory towers do without when the funding gets cut because the public has become cynical with overspending? Nope. It's the actual workers who go without...and have to keep doing the jobs that the public needs without proper resources.
Hear hear
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 05, 2007, 10:20:31 PM
If I lived in an area that had carpool lanes: and one that also opened them up to hybrid vehicles: I would have no choice but to buy an older Insight and swap an ITR engine into it...
Hmm, or throw some Hybrid Synergy Drive badges on a turbo Supra or MR-2 Spyder...
Quote from: Raza on November 06, 2007, 12:32:12 PM
Hmm, or throw some Hybrid Synergy Drive badges on a turbo Supra or MR-2 Spyder...
My friend has "Hybrid" badging on his Barcelona Red 2007 Camry LE... so he parks in the Hybrid spots and uses the HOV lane.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 06, 2007, 05:23:39 PM
My friend has "Hybrid" badging on his Barcelona Red 2007 Camry LE... so he parks in the Hybrid spots and uses the HOV lane.
Brilliant!
I sill like my idea: a 1900 lb 185 HP wolf in sheep's clothing...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 06, 2007, 06:29:23 PM
Brilliant!
I sill like my idea: a 1900 lb 185 HP wolf in sheep's clothing...
K24-powered Insight?
Quote from: NACar on November 06, 2007, 06:31:44 PM
K24-powered Insight?
I was thinking B18, but yeah, same idea.
Quote from: bing_oh on November 05, 2007, 11:44:34 PM
It's true that much of the government is inherently wasteful...usually the bigger the government, the more waste there is. That inherent waste not only makes the public cynical but hurts the "worker bees" in government who actually do the nuts and bolts work that serves the public directly. After all, do you think the high muckamucks in their ivory towers do without when the funding gets cut because the public has become cynical with overspending? Nope. It's the actual workers who go without...and have to keep doing the jobs that the public needs without proper resources.
You're right. But the unions that unions that government employees belong to are a big part of the problem. Their attitude is to defend the worker right or wrong, and to prevent reward for superior work. They therefore effectively reward mediocrity and punish exceptional work. That's one reason why government is less efficient than it should be. If you work for government, you effectively get treated no better than the worst worker, and that is demoralizing for people who want to excel. It's also wasteful of the taxpayers' money.
It is a given of conservative and anti-government reactionary dogma such as that represented by Grover Norquist, that the government is wasteful and inefficient. This is less the result of careful observation than an inherent hatred of government without regard to its form. No doubt there are instances where public money is wasted or used less effectively than it could be. However, a critical analysis of comparative effectiveness and efficiency would belie that basic assumption.
Consider, for example, the cost of administering the insurance industry versus the cost of administering the largest insurance scheme, Medicare. The industry average is 9.1% of premium revenue for private carriers while it is only 2% for Medicare. Further, consider the costs of administering nationalized healthcare in several foreign nations (France, Great Britain, Canada). The US spends about 16% of GDP on healthcare costs while Canada spends 9.7% and France spends 9.5%, yet both France and Canada enjoy healthier populations than the US. To make matters even worse, health insurance industry administrative costs and profits are considered expenditures for healthcare.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 05, 2007, 09:51:36 PM
GoPubes, don't use the carpool lane. Only jackasses do that. :nono:
Time to grow up.
Quote from: dazzleman on November 04, 2007, 07:16:57 PM
From what you've said in the past, I never got the impression that you were a lead-foot. I got the impression that you're the type of guy who does 10 mph or less over the speed limit.
I agree with you that a ticket every so often is worth it, in order to be able to maintain a reasonable speed.
My entire working life I've never had a commute - I've either worked from home, or lived only a few miles from the office. Now that I'm slogging it out with who knows how many other underlings on some of the worst roads in the nation, the willingess (and really ability) to follow the speed limit evaporates.
Quote from: dazzleman on November 07, 2007, 05:43:48 AM
You're right. But the unions that unions that government employees belong to are a big part of the problem. Their attitude is to defend the worker right or wrong, and to prevent reward for superior work. They therefore effectively reward mediocrity and punish exceptional work. That's one reason why government is less efficient than it should be. If you work for government, you effectively get treated no better than the worst worker, and that is demoralizing for people who want to excel. It's also wasteful of the taxpayers' money.
I know that alot of people are staunchly anti-union, holding the opinion that the union is an outdated creature better left in the time of the industrial revolution and the robber barons. I'm not one of them (interestingly enough, given my conservative political beliefs). Neither am I a person who believes that all workers should be unionized...I believe that workers and companies
CAN work well together without the need for union representation.
However, I think it's too far to go to say that unions are a major cause of government inefficiency. Government employment is a place where ass kissing, ass covering, and back stabbing are still very much alive and well. It's also a place where the old addage "it's not who you know, it's who you blow" applies.
Let me give you a personal example...
I once worked for a police department that was nationally accredited. Accreditation in LE essentially means that you have ALOT of policies and procedures (more realistically, it means that there's a policy and/or procedure for everything you do...we always joked that there was a policy on taking a crap including how long you could take, how many sheets of tp, and which direction you were permitted to wipe). Basically, no matter what one of us did on duty, we were virtually guaranteed to be in violation of a policy or procedure. Seems a little asanine, right? Not if you look at it from the city government's standpoint. The city government loved this because, if an officer did something that got the city sued, they could quote some obscure policy or procedure, say that the officer was in violation, and dump all financial liability on the individual officer. Well, as you could probably imagine, it was also very easy for a supervisor to discipline an officer who he didn't like for whatever reason...and that discipline was totally legitimate under the extensive policies and procedures. In this case, the union was invaluable in protecting the individual officer.
Also, remember that government unions don't have the "teeth" that unions in the private sector have. In the vast majority of states, it's illegal for government employees (especially essential employees like public safety) to strike. That means, even with union representation, most government employees are at the mercy of (usually elected) higher government officials.
And, on the topic of higher officials, realize that these are the people who make the financial decisions in government, not the unionized workers. They're the key to government inefficiency and overspending, as they hold the purse strings.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 07, 2007, 10:46:05 PM
My entire working life I've never had a commute - I've either worked from home, or lived only a few miles from the office. Now that I'm slogging it out with who knows how many other underlings on some of the worst roads in the nation, the willingess (and really ability) to follow the speed limit evaporates.
:thumbsup:
I also find that the more miles I drive, the faster I drive. If I'm in a period when I'm not driving too much, I'm more mellow about my speed, but when I'm driving a lot, particularly on the highway, I start to push that needle well over to the right.
Quote from: bing_oh on November 07, 2007, 11:13:29 PM
I know that alot of people are staunchly anti-union, holding the opinion that the union is an outdated creature better left in the time of the industrial revolution and the robber barons. I'm not one of them (interestingly enough, given my conservative political beliefs). Neither am I a person who believes that all workers should be unionized...I believe that workers and companies CAN work well together without the need for union representation.
However, I think it's too far to go to say that unions are a major cause of government inefficiency. Government employment is a place where ass kissing, ass covering, and back stabbing are still very much alive and well. It's also a place where the old addage "it's not who you know, it's who you blow" applies.
Let me give you a personal example...
I once worked for a police department that was nationally accredited. Accreditation in LE essentially means that you have ALOT of policies and procedures (more realistically, it means that there's a policy and/or procedure for everything you do...we always joked that there was a policy on taking a crap including how long you could take, how many sheets of tp, and which direction you were permitted to wipe). Basically, no matter what one of us did on duty, we were virtually guaranteed to be in violation of a policy or procedure. Seems a little asanine, right? Not if you look at it from the city government's standpoint. The city government loved this because, if an officer did something that got the city sued, they could quote some obscure policy or procedure, say that the officer was in violation, and dump all financial liability on the individual officer. Well, as you could probably imagine, it was also very easy for a supervisor to discipline an officer who he didn't like for whatever reason...and that discipline was totally legitimate under the extensive policies and procedures. In this case, the union was invaluable in protecting the individual officer.
Also, remember that government unions don't have the "teeth" that unions in the private sector have. In the vast majority of states, it's illegal for government employees (especially essential employees like public safety) to strike. That means, even with union representation, most government employees are at the mercy of (usually elected) higher government officials.
And, on the topic of higher officials, realize that these are the people who make the financial decisions in government, not the unionized workers. They're the key to government inefficiency and overspending, as they hold the purse strings.
But in many places, the unions have effective control over who is elected. That effectively allows them to make or break their bosses. I don't think that's a good situation.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 05, 2007, 09:51:36 PM
GoPubes, don't use the carpool lane. Only jackasses do that. :nono:
Trep, where did you come up with "GoPubes" from? I thought you had finished middle school.... :rolleyes:
Quote from: dazzleman on November 08, 2007, 04:04:53 AM
But in many places, the unions have effective control over who is elected. That effectively allows them to make or break their bosses. I don't think that's a good situation.
Bing is talking about law enforcement unions, and your average law enforcement agency nationwide still has something around 30 officers maximum, and many have less than that. You aren't going to influence many election votes with a union representing 30 people.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 07, 2007, 10:42:42 PM
Time to grow up.
Grow up? Ha! At least I don't use the carpool lane which is DESIGNATED for commuters who have the decency to share a car to work instead of clogging up the highway. Scratch that, I DO use the carpool lane when I'm alone, but only in my Hybrid car.
Quote from: dazzleman on November 08, 2007, 04:05:53 AM
Trep, where did you come up with "GoPubes" from? I thought you had finished middle school.... :rolleyes:
I didn't come up with it. :lol: I saw it being used somewhere else. ;)
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 09, 2007, 08:21:51 AM
Grow up? Ha! At least I don't use the carpool lane which is DESIGNATED for commuters who have the decency to share a car to work instead of clogging up the highway. Scratch that, I DO use the carpool lane when I'm alone, but only in my Hybrid car.
Do you ever feel bad when you pass a little geo metro who is getting better MPG than you but can't use the carpool lane?
With the new rediculous hybrids coming out, they need to rethink the whole hybrids can use the carpool lane thing.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 09, 2007, 08:21:51 AM
Grow up? Ha! At least I don't use the carpool lane which is DESIGNATED for commuters who have the decency to share a car to work instead of clogging up the highway. Scratch that, I DO use the carpool lane when I'm alone, but only in my Hybrid car.
Unless somebody is coming up behind him and he's impeding their progress, he's not clogging up anything.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 09, 2007, 08:22:12 AM
I didn't come up with it. :lol: I saw it being used somewhere else. ;)
I'm not sure how it applies to GoCougs. It's a weak rhyme. The G-Unit name for Lazerous is a lot better, man.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 09, 2007, 08:21:51 AM
Grow up? Ha! At least I don't use the carpool lane which is DESIGNATED for commuters who have the decency to share a car to work instead of clogging up the highway. Scratch that, I DO use the carpool lane when I'm alone, but only in my Hybrid car.
I'll send a letter to the pope nominating your for sainthood, Trep.... :evildude:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 09, 2007, 08:21:51 AM
Grow up? Ha! At least I don't use the carpool lane which is DESIGNATED for commuters who have the decency to share a car to work instead of clogging up the highway. Scratch that, I DO use the carpool lane when I'm alone, but only in my Hybrid car.
Priceless, and sig worthy to boot.
Quote from: the nameless one on November 09, 2007, 07:29:04 AM
Bing is talking about law enforcement unions, and your average law enforcement agency nationwide still has something around 30 officers maximum, and many have less than that. You aren't going to influence many election votes with a union representing 30 people.
Police unions are about the only public employee unions that I find tolerable.
Quote from: the nameless one on November 09, 2007, 07:29:04 AM
Bing is talking about law enforcement unions, and your average law enforcement agency nationwide still has something around 30 officers maximum, and many have less than that. You aren't going to influence many election votes with a union representing 30 people.
I don't know what the politics are like around your neck of the woods, but in the heavily unionized and union-sympathetic Detroit area, there's a lot of cross-influence between different trade unions, so while I think your basic assertation may be correct- that 30 people aren't a huge influence- the confluence of other union support can make a big difference too.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 09, 2007, 08:21:51 AM
Grow up? Ha! At least I don't use the carpool lane which is DESIGNATED for commuters who have the decency to share a car to work instead of clogging up the highway. Scratch that, I DO use the carpool lane when I'm alone, but only in my Hybrid car.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: the nameless one on November 09, 2007, 07:29:04 AM
Bing is talking about law enforcement unions, and your average law enforcement agency nationwide still has something around 30 officers maximum, and many have less than that. You aren't going to influence many election votes with a union representing 30 people.
Absolutely true. And, while you could argue that the FOP (for example) is a nationwide union and, as such wields enormous political power, that would only be partially true. The FOP
is a national union and they do have a bit of political weight in the national political arena, but their political power is realistically limited to the extremely large metropolitan PD's (like NYPD). Politics and political power vary greatly when you're talking about small PD's (and, again, Nameless One is correct when he says that the vast majority of police departments in the nation are small...something like 90% of the US's LEO's are employed by agencies with less than 50 officers) and the monsters like NYPD, Chicago PD, and LAPD. In small towns, the union's national political power means next to nothing.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 09, 2007, 08:41:19 PM
I don't know what the politics are like around your neck of the woods, but in the heavily unionized and union-sympathetic Detroit area, there's a lot of cross-influence between different trade unions, so while I think your basic assertation may be correct- that 30 people aren't a huge influence- the confluence of other union support can make a big difference too.
To my knowledge, the major LE unions (the Fraternal Order of Police and the Police Benevolent Association) don't do much cross-pollenation with other unions. LE unions tend to have very different political bases than most unions, with most LEO's being very politically-conservative while your average labor unions have a strong liberal/Democrat slant.