Cops and ticketing quotas

[Regolith]

Where is this said interstate where the speed limit is 60 and it should be raised to 80.

I've drove a lot big city interstates and sometimes the 55 speed limit is a bit high due to the on ramps, off ramps, one interstate merging with another, truck traffic, unusual road design, road surface, etc.

I84 through Oregon. REALLY should be 75 or 80 (it goes up to 75 once you cross into Idaho). I5 probably should be as well, save maybe in the urban areas.  Currently it's 65.

Most of the highways on the east side of the state should really be bumped up to 65-70 as well. That's about what 90% of the traffic is doing anyway. Currently, they're 55, and driving through the east side of the state at that speed is mind numbing, monotonous, and completely unnecessary.

[Levant]

This story doesn't make me want to bash police; it makes me want to bash police chiefs.  This cop is a truly remarkable man.

But I hate these videos.  THey lead me down a trail of hours of watching abusive cops.  There are just too many such videos.

It is pretty darn nice to see a good one every now and then.  Are all good cops ex-cops?

[TechMan]

This story doesn't make me want to bash police; it makes me want to bash police chiefs.  This cop is a truly remarkable man.

But I hate these videos.  THey lead me down a trail of hours of watching abusive cops.  There are just too many such videos.

It is pretty darn nice to see a good one every now and then.  Are all good cops ex-cops?

You know you only have to watch the video at the link and not click on anything else....just saying. 

[Jocassee]

This story doesn't make me want to bash police; it makes me want to bash police chiefs.  This cop is a truly remarkable man.

These are my thoughts exactly.

[Balog]

Traffic laws, criminal laws, civil laws, you know laws (most laws come about from social norms). Usually its police that enforce those, they have to enforce traffic along with criminal laws.

So if I understand how you are thinking, you prefer a police officer that enforces traffic laws to be unarmed?

I'd prefer traffic laws that penalize actual reckless and dangerous behaviour, instead of some arbitrary BS lowest common denominator limit designed solely to generate revenue. And really, you use "laws" and "social norms" interchangeably?!?!?!?!

[roo_ster]

I'd prefer traffic laws that penalize actual reckless and dangerous behaviour, instead of some arbitrary BS lowest common denominator limit designed solely to generate revenue. And really, you use "laws" and "social norms" interchangeably?!?!?!?!

Sounds like performance-based vs requirements-based evaluation.

[lupinus]

I'd prefer traffic laws that penalize actual reckless and dangerous behaviour, instead of some arbitrary BS lowest common denominator limit designed solely to generate revenue. And really, you use "laws" and "social norms" interchangeably?!?!?!?!

This.

A cop patrolling a section of road and pulling over people driving like asshats (tailgating, cutting people off, weaving in and out of traffic, failing to stay to the right to allow faster traffic to pass, etc.) would do a HELL of a lot more to reduce wrecks and fatalities than sitting his ass in one spot and pulling over whoever he feel likes when they ding his radar gun.

[Levant]

This.

A cop patrolling a section of road and pulling over people driving like asshats (tailgating, cutting people off, weaving in and out of traffic, failing to stay to the right to allow faster traffic to pass, etc.) would do a HELL of a lot more to reduce wrecks and fatalities than sitting his ass in one spot and pulling over whoever he feel likes when they ding his radar gun.

That's pretty close but how about a cop patrolling a section of town looking for real bad guys or just making himself seen in order to prevent crime... and then, if he happens to see someone driving stupidly dangerous, pull them over and invite them to the ball.  Mostly, traffic patrol should be an accident of just doing police work.

[drewtam]

That's pretty close but how about a cop patrolling a section of town looking for real bad guys or just making himself seen in order to prevent crime... and then, if he happens to see someone driving stupidly dangerous, pull them over and invite them to the ball.  Mostly, traffic patrol should be an accident of just doing police work.

I'm not sure I would go that far. Traffic fatalities are about twice the rate of homicide (~33.8k v ~14.7k). Of course, there is a big difference between accidental and intentional behavior, but in terms of outcomes the traffic safety issues shouldn't be ignored systematically.

[Levant]

I'm not sure I would go that far. Traffic fatalities are about twice the rate of homicide (~33.8k v ~14.7k). Of course, there is a big difference between accidental and intentional behavior, but in terms of outcomes the traffic safety issues shouldn't be ignored systematically.

I didn't say traffic violations should be ignored systematically.  I said that police presence while doing other work would have a big impact on driver behavior.  We live in a world where traffic patrol is undercover work in unmarked and obscure cars in hopes of writing a ticket rather than in a well marked black and white with a big bubble or light-bar that works to control driver behavior just by being seen.

Then, instead of concentrating on speeding violations, cops could, if they see dangerous behavior, write tickets for the things that really cause accidents.

I think you make my case - or a case I'd like to make.  The war on drugs is a disaster; it's done nothing to stop drugs and probably increases the use.  Gun control doesn't stop gun violence.  Why would you think that writing the occasional ticket for speeding is going to stop traffic deaths? 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811753.pdf

NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with
a speeding-related offense or if an officer indicated that racing, driving too fast
for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in
the crash.

That document indicates that 31 to 32% of traffic fatalities are speed related but the number is wholey based on officer opinion - though the opinion is based on lots of experience, I know, but at least 70% of fatalities, then, are not speeding related at all most tickets written are for speeding.  Statistics on what tickets are written for is strangely unavailable in the hour I spent searching on Google.

A couple of views that speeding is not the primary cause but, instead, distracted driving or following too close seem to be much more dangerous. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57583281/study-distracted-driving-deaths-underreported/

http://albany-lawyer.blogspot.com/2006/12/following-too-close-tailgating-traffic.html

Police sitting watching radar is not about accident prevention or public safety.  As the article linked below states, some officers are likely very interested in safety but the department, the city, and the traffic program are interested in revenue.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/10/19/town-that-lived-off-speeding-tickets/

According to the page linked below, the average revenue generated by each and every police officer in the United States is $300,000.  That's about $150 per working hour in revenue.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/ That's a pretty high revenue rate per person - and still the city wants taxes to pay for police.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you don't see a problem with this ?

most tickets written are for speeding.  Statistics on what tickets are written for is strangely unavailable in the hour I spent searching on Google.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

also willing to bet you that more parking tickets are given than speeding

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

this ones not exactly a ticket

http://shar.es/KaTMClady gets life for 6th dui

[Levant]

you don't see a problem with this ?

most tickets written are for speeding.  Statistics on what tickets are written for is strangely unavailable in the hour I spent searching on Google.

Not at all.  Do you have any evidence that my statement is incorrect? 

[Levant]

also willing to bet you that more parking tickets are given than speeding

You got me there.  Are you suggesting that is a cause of traffic fatalities?

[Levant]

this ones not exactly a ticket

http://shar.es/KaTMClady gets life for 6th dui

Link's broke.

Here's my opinion on drunk drivers:  First offense: 30 days.  Second offense: 1 year.  Third offense: 5 years.  Fourth offense: 20 years.  Fifth offense: third-strike; life in prison.  DUI should be a strict liability offense; you meet the numbers then you're guilty so it is a good candidate for mandatory punishment.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

A jury in texas agrees and so do i

damn phone

[gunsmith]

Hell yes I want higher speed limits.  And I want incompetent drivers to stay in the right lane where they belong, and where the law states they should stay.  And I want those "Slower traffic keep right" signs to have "THIS MEANS YOU!!!" added to them.  And I want driving competency tests to be administered every 10 years or so.  Speed doesn't kill, bad driving does.

pretty much have to agree here.

WRT drunk drivers, part of me want's to kill them because my late GF was killed by one, but in my drinking days I was way way more careful when driving because I didn't want a DUI and taught myself to be really anal about stop signs/signalling/everything cops look for to pull you over.
I never really got tickets until I was sober and figured I could be a slacker like everyone else on the road.
I think if a person is over the low limit set - and they're staying in the lane, stopping at stop signs - you know- being a good driver then they should not be pulled over.
I hate check point charlies

[Levant]

I think if a person is over the low limit set - and they're staying in the lane, stopping at stop signs - you know- being a good driver then they should not be pulled over.
I hate check point charlies

Like all stupid government bans and programs, the limit used to be 1.0 to 1.2 in most states.  Now it is dropping in many to .08 or below with the claim that lowering the limits will keep more drunks off the roads - when, in fact, it simply made more people on the road legally drunk.  The way to keep drunk people off the road is to put them in jail for serious time.  3 months on the first conviction or pleading and a year the next.  DUI #3 should be a felony and have 3 to 5 years.  Conviction #4 10 to 15 years.  Conviction #5 is a three-strikes felony and should get life.

Then, raise the limit back to reasonable levels and work to get true drunks off the street rather than simply calling more people drunk so you can raise the numbers of arrests but still leave the seriously drunk people on the road.

[Strings]

Also... take a look at BAC levels in major alcohol related accidents: it's never .08, .09, .10. Usually, it's "Why does this person have so much blood in their alcohol system?"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Also... take a look at BAC levels in major alcohol related accidents: it's never .08, .09, .10. Usually, it's "Why does this person have so much blood in their alcohol system?"

How drunk does it take to not see the biker and merge into him? Is it only "major" accidents that count?  Whats your metric for major? That bad merge barely scratches a cars paint but it might seem major to someone lays down their bike.  And how often does someone "just a lil buzzed" screw up and not get breathalyzed.

damn phone

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Also... take a look at BAC levels in major alcohol related accidents: it's never .08, .09, .10. Usually, it's "Why does this person have so much blood in their alcohol system?"

and oh the irony of this source
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scientific-and-rational-review
A 2007 case-control study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health reviewed 10-years of US auto-fatality data. Investigators found that US drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% – a level well below the legal limit for intoxication – were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana.[40] A 2005 review of auto accident fatality data from France reported similar results, finding that drivers who tested positive for any amount of alcohol had a four times greater risk of having a fatal accident than did drivers who tested positive for marijuana in their blood.[41] In the latter study, even drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for higher concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml). Both studies noted that overall few traffic accidents appeared to be attributed to driver's operating a vehicle while impaired by cannabis.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

a less accredited source...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

[Tallpine]

How drunk does it take to not see the biker and merge into him? Is it only "major" accidents that count?  Whats your metric for major? That bad merge barely scratches a cars paint but it might seem major to someone lays down their bike.  And how often does someone "just a lil buzzed" screw up and not get breathalyzed.

damn phone

The biker that whizzed up into somebody's blind spot?   

[CNYCacher]

and oh the irony of this source
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scientific-and-rational-review
A 2007 case-control study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health reviewed 10-years of US auto-fatality data. Investigators found that US drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% – a level well below the legal limit for intoxication – were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana.[40] A 2005 review of auto accident fatality data from France reported similar results, finding that drivers who tested positive for any amount of alcohol had a four times greater risk of having a fatal accident than did drivers who tested positive for marijuana in their blood.[41] In the latter study, even drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for higher concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml). Both studies noted that overall few traffic accidents appeared to be attributed to driver's operating a vehicle while impaired by cannabis.

I don't see the irony at all in the source. norml.org is a pro-marijuana organization. Maybe you are using "irony" wrong...

But the statistics as presented are mostly worthless. Considering the fact that a normally-sized person can drop their BAC by 0.01 - 0.03% *per hour*, and even faster for smaller people, you can pretty much guarantee that people who were tested for alcohol after an accident had a significantly higher BAC at the time of the accident.
Also consider the fact that you will test positive for marijuana for up to a month after using it.
You really can't compare the two in any meaningful manner, really.