If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
Arif Khokar wrote:
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06220/711935-85.stm Watch this. My fingers never leave my hands... Trooper lawsuit claims ticket quota Tuesday, August 08, 2006 By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A state trooper yesterday filed a lawsuit against his employer and numerous supervisors, claiming he's being punished for not meeting an illegal quota for traffic citations. Christopher D. Aubrecht, stationed with Troop T in New Stanton, cites several claims, including defamation; invasion of privacy; inadequate training and supervision; and the federal whistle-blower law. Mr. Aubrecht claims that he always received satisfactory or above performance level reviews. But in June 2005, after he received a satisfactory review, his supervisor was ordered to change it "to reflect that his work results needed improvement," because he failed "to adhere to the station average for the issuance of traffic citations," the lawsuit claims. Troopers who did not meet the "illegal quota system," were punished, Mr. Aubrecht contends, with fewer overtime opportunities; no promotions and reassignments. He claims that's what happened to him, and that the punishment he received has interrupted his ability to attend college classes. Additionally, he said troopers who exceeded the quota were rewarded. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the Pennsylvania State Police; Col. Jeffrey B. Miller, the commissioner of the state police; several other state-level and troop-level supervisors and the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association. Mr. Aubrecht is seeking to stop the enforcement of a quota system and compensatory and punitive damages. ===== 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. As usual, the news report details very little; certainly enough to speculate and rant, not enough on which to base an informed conclusion. ----- - gpsman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
> 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. SOME cops understand this, and would prefer to be allowed to concentrate on truly dangerous drivers. Most cops just go with the flow and collect taxes while telling themselves and everybody else that it's about safety. Thus the only good cops are the ones who are well below average, in terms of number of tickets written and in terms of amount of fines assessed. It is truly bull**** that good cops like that are punished for being good cops. Simply put, this cop objects to being forced to be a tax collector with a gun. Most don't object to that, but here is one who does. -Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
In article ews.net>,
"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. > SOME cops understand this, and would prefer to be allowed to concentrate on > truly dangerous drivers. Most cops just go with the flow and collect taxes > while telling themselves and everybody else that it's about safety. Thus > the only good cops are the ones who are well below average, in terms of > number of tickets written and in terms of amount of fines assessed. It is > truly bull**** that good cops like that are punished for being good cops. > > Simply put, this cop objects to being forced to be a tax collector with a > gun. Most don't object to that, but here is one who does. -Dave 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
In article >,
Shawn Hirn > wrote: > In article ews.net>, > "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. > > SOME cops understand this, and would prefer to be allowed to concentrate on > > truly dangerous drivers. Most cops just go with the flow and collect taxes > > while telling themselves and everybody else that it's about safety. Thus > > the only good cops are the ones who are well below average, in terms of > > number of tickets written and in terms of amount of fines assessed. It is > > truly bull**** that good cops like that are punished for being good cops. > > > > Simply put, this cop objects to being forced to be a tax collector with a > > gun. Most don't object to that, but here is one who does. -Dave > > 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
> 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. No, that would make matters worse. The quotas would increase about 700% to cover the budget shortfall. In other words, if you divert most of the taxes elsewhere, the local governments will just put pressure on the cops to write more tickets. A plan that WOULD work would be to require 105% of all traffic ticket revenue to be donated to charity. How is it possible to require more than 100% of traffic ticket revenue go to charity? I think local governments should -match- the charity donation, 5 dollars for every 100 dollars collected in traffic fines. THEN the political pressure would be on cops to only ticket truly unsafe driving behaviors, as writing too many frivolous 67/55 type bull**** speeding tickets is really going to hurt the bottom line. -Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
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. 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? > If it was about safety, there would be no quota. Spurious conclusion. The existence of a quota would not prevent the inclusion of safety. 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. ISTM that some standard must exist to determine job performance. Perhaps Mr. Aubrecht arrested twice as many otherand more dangerous criminals as his fellow officers "average" in traffic citations and so that's what was consuming his time. Still, that remains to be seen and we'll likely never learn the outcome of his suit. > SOME cops understand this, and would prefer to be allowed to concentrate on > truly dangerous drivers. Then they should acquire a supervisory position. You *do* have a superior at work who determines your goals... so that he may attain the goals of the responsibility which he been assigned by *his* boss... so that you both keep your jobs and have a realistic chance for advancement... don't you? > 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. I don't think cops usually determine that safety is a reason for a law, I don't see why the reason for a law would matter to them. > Thus > the only good cops are the ones who are well below average, in terms of > number of tickets written and in terms of amount of fines assessed. It is > truly bull**** that good cops like that are punished for being good cops. I think a good cop might show some results, a reason why he should collect his paycheck. If Mr. Aubrecht is assigned to traffic duty and spends his work period sleeping behind a shopping center... I don't think that would be being a very good cop. I think the question is, what has Mr. Aubrect been doing with his work time, and why does he feel he should be earning "Attaboys" for it? > > Simply put, this cop objects to being forced to be a tax collector with a > gun. Spurious conclusion. He may just be lazy or stupid. He may have taken a second job and catches up on his rest while on duty for the state. The "tax" reference is ridiculous as I have rarely had that tax burden unfairly assigned to me, or anyone I know. At any rate, if he objects to writing traffic citations when that has been determined by his superiors to be his job, he should find another job. Whatever you do... washing windshields on the corner... if you don't want to do that and refuse to do it, I don't think you should be paid to not do it, do you? > Most don't object to that, but here is one who does. Spurious conclusion. You could have no idea of his motivation. Perhaps he prefers to strongarm merchants for "protection" money rather than stand out on a hot highway dealing with the likes of the pinheads in r.a.d. Perhaps he's a serial rapist and spends his time occupied there... you don't know. ----- - gpsman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Again with the ticket quotas
>> >> 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Got a ticket Friday... | Cory Dunkle | Driving | 55 | January 21st 05 11:04 PM |
help with first traffic ticket please........ | [email protected] | VW water cooled | 4 | December 9th 04 03:21 AM |
Beating a Traffic Ticket | [email protected] | VW air cooled | 3 | December 7th 04 03:32 AM |