Again with the ticket quotas

>>
>> The problem is that traffic tickets are a tax on motorists that has
>> nothing
>> at all to do with safety.
>
> Really...?! I think you mean speeding tickets. I don't think you'd
> have a problem with a driver who ran a red light and injured you or
> your loved one being cited... would you?

Of course not. But how often does that happen in real life? I said traffic
tickets are a tax on motorists, as I was speaking about how laws are
CURRENTLY enforced, not how they SHOULD be enforced. Unfortunately, there
is a huge difference between the two.

>> If it was about safety, there would be no quota.
>
> Spurious conclusion. The existence of a quota would not prevent the
> inclusion of safety.

It sure does. You've got underposted speed limits and people with guns
handing out tax bills for 56 in a 55MPH zone, and totally ignoring people
who drive 56 in 30MPH zones. Consequently, people have rightfully concluded
that speed limits are not set for safety, and thus ignore them. THAT is how
the existence of quotas prevents the inclusion of safety. It actually
reinforces illegal behavior.

>
> Mr. Aubrecht is "claiming" that his failure to perform to his
> jurisdictions "average" of citations is a quota. So far, that has not
> been determined to *be* a quota, except by a few have very little if
> any personal knowledge of the circumstances.

Semantics. He's not meeting his numbers. Most people would call that a
quota, but you won't find anyone in that particular police department who
CALLS it a quota.


>
>> SOME cops understand this, and would prefer to be allowed to concentrate
>> on
>> truly dangerous drivers.
>
> Then they should acquire a supervisory position.

Impossible to do, when your performance reviews are poor because you aren't
meeting your quota.


>> Most cops just go with the flow and collect taxes
>> while telling themselves and everybody else that it's about safety.
>
> I don't think so. I think most everybody who has a job does what
> they're told.

Yes, and in the case of traffic cops, they are told to collect more taxes to
balance the local budget. Most of them gladly do so. Some object.
Unfortunately, the ones who object (like they should) are punished for
objecting. -Dave

In article ews.net>,
"Mike T." > wrote:

> >>
> >> I would like to see a law that requires 85% of the revenue from all
> >> traffic tickets to go to a charity. The remaining 15% goes to
> >> administrative overhead. Each person who is issued a ticket for a moving
> >> violation would have the option of selecting one charity to receive the
> >> funds and if a charity is not selected, the money can get into a default
> >> charity. This way, it takes the financial motivation to issue tickets
> >> off the table.
> >
> > Another solution would be to drop the fine and just issue points.
> >
> > Think about how removing fines will affect enforcement priorities. If
> > there is no money to be made, why run speed traps on safe roads? A real
> > switch in priorities would target the real hazards, the people and
> > situations that cause accidents. They'll get points, suspensions, and
> > come to the attention of their friendly insurance companies. But it will
> > be their driving and not their money that would cause the enforcement
> > action.
>
> Actually, it would still be the money that causes the enforcement action.
> Insurance companies already donate gobs of money and supplies (ie, radar
> guns, etc.) to law enforcement agencies. If we make traffic safety a points
> game, expect the kickbacks from insurance companies to quadruple. So we end
> up in a situation where the local cops who issue the most tickets get the
> jackpot of a donation of a million bucks from the insurance agency that they
> helped to make rich.
>
> No, I think my idea was the only one likely to work . . . donate 105% of
> ticket revenue to charity, with the local government kicking in the extra
> 5%. That has no drawbacks, political pressure would be to maximize safety
> and minimize tax collection. -Dave

Traffic "safety" already is a points game...

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:52:58 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> >> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06220/711935-85.stm
> >
> >Yep, same old thing... there are no 'quotas' but if you bring in a below
> >average amount of money expect to be punished. If you want to be
> >promoted bring in a lot of cash.
> >
>
> This problem would go away if traffic crimes were punished with DL
> suspension or jail time instead of fines. You want that? I do.

Absolutely. If they tried to impose those penalties, people would rise
up and fight *all* the tickets they received.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:25:39 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:

>> It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a cop assigned to traffic duty
>> might be expected to write a few tickets.
>>
>> If the "station average" is 20/week and Mr. Aubrecht could only manage
>> to issue 2... with the clouds of sloths and LLB'ers clogging up the
>> highway... perhaps he was spending his time elsewhere.
>
>The problem is that traffic tickets are a tax on motorists that has nothing
>at all to do with safety. If it was about safety, there would be no quota.

40,000+ deaths a year, hundreds of thousands of injuries, untold
million$ in property damage, and it's not about safety.
Right.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

>> This problem would go away if traffic crimes were punished with DL
>> suspension or jail time instead of fines. You want that? I do.
>
> Absolutely. If they tried to impose those penalties, people would rise
> up and fight *all* the tickets they received.
>
>

Which would lead to abolishment of speed limits and jail time for LLBs, so
I'm all for it, too. -Dave

> 40,000+ deaths a year, hundreds of thousands of injuries, untold
> million$ in property damage, and it's not about safety.
> Right.

OK, just for the heckuvit, I'll examine this from the safety side of things
for a moment. Let's look at speeding tickets in particular. You probably
believe that speeding is unsafe, and that speeding tickets somehow must help
to improve safety.

Compare the two groups of drivers below:
Group 1) Drivers who have ever been issued a speeding ticket in their lives
Group 2) Drivers in group (1) who still speed on a regular basis

If you subtract number of people in group 2 from number of people in group
1, your result is close enough to zero that any deviation from zero is
statistically insignificant, which means that speeding tickets have a ~zero
percent influence on traffic safety.

So, we've just concluded that speeding tickets are not at all about safety.
What ARE they about, then? -Dave

Bill Funk wrote: <brevity snip>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:25:39 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:

> >The problem is that traffic tickets are a tax on motorists that has nothing
> >at all to do with safety. If it was about safety, there would be no quota.
>
> 40,000+ deaths a year, hundreds of thousands of injuries, untold
> million$ in property damage, and it's not about safety.
> Right.

IIRC, the property damage figures are in multiples of "billion"...

An interesting stat is that in 2004 (the latest year figures are
available), 68.16% of fatal crashes including "all types" of vehicles
occured while the manuever the vehicle was performing was: "going
straight". http://tinyurl.com/g5mf3 (bottom of page)

ISTM that what many drivers might consider the safest manuever and
conditions, driving straight and within their "comfort zone", actually
proves to be the most dangerous situation.
-----

- gpsman

Mike T. wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:

> >> SOME cops understand this, and would prefer to be allowed to concentrate
> >> on
> >> truly dangerous drivers.
> >
> > Then they should acquire a supervisory position.
>
> Impossible to do, when your performance reviews are poor because you aren't
> meeting your quota.

Yes, isn't it just the strangest and unfathomable circumstance that
persons that don't follow orders and perfrom to standards aren't
promoted to supervise those who are expected to follow orders and
perform to standards.

What did you say you do for a living...?

>
> >> Most cops just go with the flow and collect taxes
> >> while telling themselves and everybody else that it's about safety.
> >
> > I don't think so. I think most everybody who has a job does what
> > they're told.
>
> Yes, and in the case of traffic cops, they are told to collect more taxes to
> balance the local budget.

Spurious conclusion. You have no method of determining what cops are
told to do, or why.

What about the taxes imposed on LLB's and RL runners and those who run
down pedestrians on the sidewalk, do you object to those too?

> Most of them gladly do so. Some object.
> Unfortunately, the ones who object (like they should) are punished for
> objecting.

Spurious conclusion. Perhaps a few have suffered sanctions for
whistle-blowing, I missed that information in the article related to
this discussion.
-----

- gpsman

>> >
>> > Then they should acquire a supervisory position.
>>
>> Impossible to do, when your performance reviews are poor because you
>> aren't
>> meeting your quota.
>
> Yes, isn't it just the strangest and unfathomable circumstance that
> persons that don't follow orders and perfrom to standards aren't
> promoted to supervise those who are expected to follow orders and
> perform to standards.

No, it is a strange and unfathomable circumstance that -public safety-
officials are valued for how much revenue they can generate, as opposed to
how well they -increase public safety-. If you are a good for the
community, there is no fricking way you are going to be promoted.

>> Yes, and in the case of traffic cops, they are told to collect more taxes
>> to
>> balance the local budget.
>
> Spurious conclusion. You have no method of determining what cops are
> told to do, or why.

Did you not read the OP? Cops don't have "quotas", because they don't call
them "quotas". Rather, cops are given performance evaluations based on how
many tickets they write, and how much money is collected in fines. Those
who don't collect enough money are given poor performance evaluations. Just
about everybody with half a brain calls that a quota, but cops aren't paid
to think, so most of them are automatons that keep handing out tax bills
while chanting, "slow down, you'se gonna keel subuddy".

> What about the taxes imposed on LLB's and RL runners and those who run
> down pedestrians on the sidewalk, do you object to those too?

Red herring. It almost never happens. 99.99% of traffic enforcement is
speed patrol carried out on very safe multi-lane divided highways, typically
marked with speed limits of 55/65MPH, which themselves are posted well below
the 85th percentile speed. If you see a cop doing traffic enforcement
within 500 yards of any red light or sidewalk, you'd better have a video
camera rolling at the time, as NOBODY will believe you. Same thing if you
ever see a cop enforce lane usage statutes. Nobody will believe it unless
you catch it on video. Even then, some will think it was probably
taged. -Dave

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:

> speed patrol carried out on very safe multi-lane divided highways, typically
> marked with speed limits of 55/65MPH, which themselves are posted well below
> the 85th percentile speed. If you see a cop doing traffic enforcement
> within 500 yards of any red light or sidewalk, you'd better have a video
> camera rolling at the time, as NOBODY will believe you. Same thing if you
> ever see a cop enforce lane usage statutes. Nobody will believe it unless
> you catch it on video. Even then, some will think it was probably
> taged.

I once saw ISP ticket shoulder passers once. (The cop shoulder passed me
some time earlier, so it's another case of do as I say, not as I do)

I once saw ISP ticket people using the coned off area of a construction
zone to pass once. (Had seen cops doing the same)

I once saw a village cop go after someone for left turn lane conga-lining.

I once saw a cop light up a trucker who turned left in front of me and
forced me to brake.

One time a guy was tailgating me and going slower didn't help and
actually made him angry so I accelerated away, the idiot tried chasing
me. Cop stopped him and I kept on going. Talk about a miricle.

I can't think of any more... and the covers everything I can think of
since about 1989. In one friday night I can see more officers than that
running speed traps.

Oh, and a long time ago at state police call in traffic court there were
a good number of truckers cited for using the left lanes on I294.