ticket quotas for denver cycle police

[velomoto]

Penalties, without financially rewarding the penalizer, is the key.

Ummm, Steve I just don't belive this is the case in Denver. The industry I work in "burdens" wages by over 100%. In other words if the salary is $20 and hour, it's costing the company over $40 an hour after all the bennies get added in (insurance, pension, paid holidays, vacation, education, rent, heat, lighting, computer and office equipment, social security, etc. etc.). The last ticket I got in Colorado was about $80 - I figure the LEO used up half that money in the time it took to write the ticket and report.

 

Perhaps there was a time when tickets were profitable, but I doubt this is the case for large cities now.

 

As for your earlier assertion that fines were unfair to the poor (less wealthy?), I agree completely. But I was never promised fair, only opportunity.

[ericfoerster]

You can accomplish your mission, to protect and to serve, without fines. Fines accomplish little more than redistributing wealth. Penalties, without financially rewarding the penalizer, is the key.

 

 

You may be on to something here. I may ask the question of what penalty would take the place of fines?

If it stings a little we are less likely to repeat the same behavior. I am just curious what could cause the desired reaction other than a hit to the wallet.

[steve.foote]

It could be a lot of things, Eric. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I like the idea of accumulating points to a drivers license. I believe most states do this now, but usually for more serious offenses.

 

Here in Georgia, your license is suspended if you accumulate 15 points over 24 months. Currently, you accumulate 2 points if you are convicted of speeding 15-18mph over the limit, 3 points for 19-23, etc. up to 6 points for more than 34mph. Obviously, here in Georgia, the points are not as punative as they could be. You can do a hell of a lot of speeding with 15 points.

 

Make the point-penalties count for more, or reduce the total points it takes to suspend a drivers license and I have a feeling that most people, faced with the possibility of losing their drivers license, won't speed.

 

And, because there is no money involved, no conflict of interest, you guys would be percieved as doing your job enforcing the law and saving lives, not sucking in money for the city.

 

It's the money. The money has to be removed in order to restore confidence and integrity.

[ericfoerster]

That seems like a viable alternative to me. I think the real problem lies with the perception that we are collecting money for the city when in reality we are not. As stated earlier, we actually collect very little money here in Texas from our tickets. There are very few places left that run speed traps that I am aware of. True, there are some agencies that work traffic enforcement in a very aggressive manner. I still doubt their intention is to fill the city coffers.

The largest complaint issue I have in my office is that of some sort of traffic issue. Speeding cars and cars ignoring stop signs seem to fill my complaint folder pretty quick. I want my guys to work the locations to get the public off my case…nothing more. Repeated calls to my office or the City Manager will usually find me looking work in short order. The general public is asking for us to take the enforcement action in many cases.

The ethics behind the “needed” change seem flawed in my view. I am biased after 15 years of doing this type of work. The only times I have ever been near a quota were while working the Federal or State programs when certain numbers were needed to fulfill the grant requirements. Most of these grants are done by a lottery system now. You don’t know what percentage of funding you are going to receive until after the enforcement period has expired.

Our state now has a point system as well as the fine. I’ve honestly not seen a change in the behavior of the drivers at all. They are now getting a double penalty and even that is not working.

[MotorinLA]

Nice try MotorinLA, but no donut.

 

While your disection of my numbers seems to make sense, you forgot to inject the contribution to your departments budget by the, um-hm, taxpayers. Taxpayers who, by law, are supposed to be paying the whole share of your budget anyway.

 

Dude, you're missing the point here. You can still enforce the law without fines. You can accomplish your mission, to protect and to serve, without fines. Fines accomplish little more than redistributing wealth. Penalties, without financially rewarding the penalizer, is the key.

 

NO DONUT??? That is just taking it too far. I MUST have my donut!

 

I realize that the money collected doesn’t go directly back to officers salaries. However, it does illustrate that traffic enforcement in itself does not create more money that it costs to operate it.

 

As far as other penalties… caning works fine for me (ten strokes hurts just as much for the stock broker as for the mother of four).

 

As far as your point system, MUHA-HA-HA-HA, any idea how many people drive around with a suspended license or no license at all??? My guess would be – NO. Do a ride along with a traffic officer for a day and you’ll probably be afraid to venture out on a public road ever again (and not just because of the way the officer drives…).

[BeniciaRT_GT]

You can accomplish your mission, to protect and to serve, without fines. Fines accomplish little more than redistributing wealth. Penalties, without financially rewarding the penalizer, is the key.

 

 

You may be on to something here. I may ask the question of what penalty would take the place of fines?

If it stings a little we are less likely to repeat the same behavior. I am just curious what could cause the desired reaction other than a hit to the wallet.

 

A good, solid "pull them out the window" flogging immediately on the side of the road...!!!

 

That would have a great deterrent effect on others as they passed the scene of the crime too!!!!

[ericfoerster]

A good, solid "pull them out the window" flogging immediately on the side of the road...!!!

 

That would have a great deterrent effect on others as they passed the scene of the crime too!!!!

 

 

Richard you are correct as always I am going to place in this in our operating manual as of today

 

I'll report back in a few weeks to see how the floggings are working out. I am off to find my guys some fresh bamboo rods for the morning traffic detail.

[Paul Mihalka]

A good, solid "pull them out the window" flogging immediately on the side of the road...!!!

 

That would have a great deterrent effect on others as they passed the scene of the crime too!!!!

Man, I would have a raw a$$!

[tallman]

Steve,

what you are advocating for sounds good, at first glance.

But, it isn't.

It simply reallocates the fine money from public to private hands.

The Insurance Companies would be all over this.

Rates would vary and the stock broker/mom of 4 impact argument becomes even costlier.

In fine situation, she pays her $150 and has no further impact if she alters behavior (no more tickets).

In your world, she continues to have economic impact for the duration of the policy term, and posssibly. the next policy term.

I think we should skip the whole fine process and give the LEO's a card reader.

Zap the card at the time of the offense and get the $148.35 immediately.

Run the dricer's license through the scan and load it with driver profile. That way, the next time the driver is stopped, the officer can tell if you got a recent violation.

There is no way to assess a fine/penalty that is fair and equal to all members of society. Not everyone can afford a GS. Some people have to buy Buell's.

How about this.

Mount an EZ Pass to all vehicles, speed readers assess your speed and bill you a road use fee on certain roads such as limited access and rural secondary.

One rate = no charge, another = $$.

Unless you created another problem that was a traffic violation, you just goes about your bizness and pays as you goes.

That would be a fair system for all as you could choose the amount of money you were willing to spend for that roadway. Stay in the right lane, go the posted limit, no cost.

Fair and equitable.

Go a bit faster, pay to play.

Go a bunch faster, trigger the $$$ response.

Collision you are responsible for?

Lose your EZ Pass for a period of time and face serious consequences for violations during this period of time.

[steve.foote]

Eric, I agree that it is the perception that is causing the public relations problem here. But, you can't expect, as is the the case in Denver, $14 million isn't being coveted by someone, somewhere.

 

It would be interesting to see how much money is fined annually for the entire US. That would include traffic fines, IRS fines, etc. I'll bet the number is mindboggling.

 

As for the effectivness of fines vs points, it's really difficult to compare unless you increase the punch of the points. For example, here in GA, the points system is so generous that most people can speed, almost with impunity, and never even get close to having their license suspended. Tighten up those points and I'll bet we'd see some change in behavior. Also, point-penalties could be doubled for school zones, construction sites, dangerous stretches of roads, etc.

[steve.foote]

NO DONUT??? That is just taking it too far. I MUST have my donut!

 

I'm serious, no donut!

 

As far as your point system, MUHA-HA-HA-HA, any idea how many people drive around with a suspended license or no license at all??? My guess would be – NO. Do a ride along with a traffic officer for a day and you’ll probably be afraid to venture out on a public road ever again (and not just because of the way the officer drives…).

 

As for folks driving on suspended licenses, lock 'em up. How does 30 days for the first offense, doubled for each subsequent offense, sound?

 

I'm still thinking about your caning idea.

[PhillyFlash]

As for folks driving on suspended licenses, lock 'em up. How does 30 days for the first offense, doubled for each subsequent offense, sound?

 

I'm still thinking about your caning idea.

 

After reading all of these posts, by LEO's and non-LEO's alike, it's clear to me that giving out tickets is a minimal, at best, deterrent for most people. When people see someone pulled over, they slow down for a short time in that area. If someone is pulled over near a stop sign or traffic light, more people will stop instead of coasting through at that intersection. Not everyone speeds and not everyone runs stop signs and stop lights, but for those who do so, they know that the odds of getting a ticket are very small, and if they get one, they don't have to worry much until they get at least one or two more. Seeing someone else getting one just decreases the odds that you'll get one nearby. There just are not enough LEO's out there to make the risk of getting a $200 speeding ticket a sufficient deterrent for chronic speeders. What do LEO's catch, 1 in 1000 speeders, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000? I don't know, but percentage-wise, it's pretty poor. If it was more like 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, it might be more of a deterrent.

 

So if you don't have the man-power to make the risk of getting a ticket a deterrent, then you need to increase to consequence to a level where the fear of being 1 in 10,000 is great enough to change behavior. Penalty for speeding - immediate loss of your license for 3 months and 3 days in jail. Second offense or caught for any reason driving without a license, 30 days in jail and loss of license for 1 year, mandatory. Next offense, 1 year in jail, and permanent loss of license. Next offense, 5 year in prison, no time off for good behavior. Same thing for running stop signs or stop lights, railroad crossings, passing on the right, etc. This would include any combination of offenses. I may take a chance speeding until the first time I get caught, but you better believe I won't let it happen a second time. If that system doesn't change behavior, then become harsher. Make it 30 days jail time for the first offense, a year for the second, 10 years for the third, etc. As was already mentioned, monetarily, fines don't mean the same thing to the rich as they do to the poor. Jail time is jail time for all of us.

 

Now of course, this is partly tongue-in-cheek. Most of us would agree that those penalties are too great to be reasonable. However, if the purpose of the possibility of getting a citation is to change behavior of the public as a whole, and if the tickets that are being written fail to do that, and only serve to possibly modify the behavior of that one individual, and possibly only for a short period of time, then either the consequences of getting caught need to be increased to a level that generates a greater level of fear in everyone, or the system needs to be changed. Of course, if a primary purpose is to generate revenue, then you want to have the fines at a level that generates that revenue without being so high as to have more people going to court to fight it. Seems we're right about at that level.

[RPG]

I guess a citation stop is on the average about 15 minutes (my personal experience ) so to write a ticket every 30 minutes a officer has to look for the next possible victim immediately after finishing with one. To me that generates the increased possibility that the really dangerous ones drive by while the officer is constantly busy with minor offenders. IMHO for real safety enhancement catching 8 serious offenders would do more the then writing 16 ten over tickets. It is also very tempting to stop on the side of a road that has a nice long straight, preferably down hill, with a low speed limit, and write a ticket to everybody who drives by.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

All true, and keep that crap up for a while and see what it does to the community's respect for law enforcement

 

yep, ever hear of New Rome, Ohio? Well, it existed for a while for the sole purpose of lining the corrupt city leader's wallets with trafic revenue. Most people I know avoided it like the plague in their motorycle travels through central Ohio. Their Daily Special was the $50 fine for dim brake lights!!

 

In general I have great respect for law enforcement. I've gotten a few tickets and paid the fines each time but the thought of some bean counter telling a cop to write tickets for the sake of lining the politician's corrupt pockets really steams me.

 

To assume that we're all potentially breaking the law by driving down the road every day tells me that the laws are probably a little too strict.

 

Rick G

[Dave McReynolds]

What do LEO's catch, 1 in 1000 speeders, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000? I don't know, but percentage-wise, it's pretty poor. If it was more like 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, it might be more of a deterrent.

 

We could probably bring the ratio down closer to the ratio that would change peoples' behavior if we focused enforcement on those areas where speeding is likely to impact others, for example, speeding through school zones or on congested highways, and away from areas where it is likely to impact only the perp, such as speeding along an otherwise empty section of I-395 (do you get the idea this is a personal issue with me?). I note the increased enforcement effort along the Salmon Falls road, a favorite squid run close to Sacramento, as an example. Bikers regularly wipe out on this road, but who cares? I haven't heard of any cases where they injured anyone else in doing it. In my opinion, it's a total waste of time to send a LEO out there when he could be protecting my mother from being rammed by somebody as she toodles down the road at 35 mph with her blinker on, maybe by getting her off the road, I don't know. We could also cut our prison population way back by taking the same approach to our laws in general, but that's another subject....

[bakerzdosen]

I drove through Denver today and where I saw a traffic officer, folks were driving a whole lot safer.

I'd buy "a whole lot slower", but "a whole lot safer" is a completely different thing. You'd really have to have some special abilities to tell if people were driving safer in a quarter-mile radius of a LEO... unless they were absolutely out of control to begin with.

[smiller]

I'd buy "a whole lot slower", but "a whole lot safer" is a completely different thing.

Yeah, but unfortunately in most people's minds slower = safer, end of story. Of course that's grossly oversimplified to the point of being incorrect, but that's the way the public seems to like things.

[leikam]

To assume that we're all potentially breaking the law by driving down the road every day tells me that the laws are probably a little too strict.

 

Los Angeles traffic is pretty much one big moving violation and more permissive laws wouldn't change a thing.

[velomoto]

To assume that we're all potentially breaking the law by driving down the road every day tells me that the laws are probably a little too strict.

 

Los Angeles traffic is pretty much one big moving violation and more permissive laws wouldn't change a thing.

+1 for Denver... 'cept during rush hour of course!

[velomoto]

I'd buy "a whole lot slower", but "a whole lot safer" is a completely different thing.

Yeah, but unfortunately in most people's minds slower = safer, end of story. Of course that's grossly oversimplified to the point of being incorrect, but that's the way the public seems to like things.

Possibly if one ignores physics. Last I checked the laws of physics haven't changed: E=1/2mv^2

In other words, double your speed and ya got 4 times the energy. Less energy means shorter stopping distance and less damage in a collision. In my (narrow?) mind, yes that does equate to more safety.

 

Or to put it another way, I figure an unsafe idiot will remain an idiot regardless of the speed. Less speed means there's more time for other drivers to compensate for (avoid?) their mistakes and they've got less energy which should mean less damage!

[MotorinLA]

It seems to me the issue should not be about how many tickets are issued (quotas), rather it should be about unfair/illegal citing practices. If the pressure to bring in revenue by issuing more citations is making officers issue questionable citation, then there is obviously a problem. Working in any major metropolitan area, officers generally will not have this problems, as there are more than enough legitimate violations to go around.

[DiggerJim]

Possibly if one ignores physics. Last I checked the laws of physics haven't changed: E=1/2mv^2

In other words, double your speed and ya got 4 times the energy. Less energy means shorter stopping distance and less damage in a collision. In my (narrow?) mind, yes that does equate to more safety.

The trouble is that you're ignoring frequency of accidents in your attempt to minimize the severity. While you are correct that lower speeds should result in less damage (to cars & people), lower speeds can also often result in increased frequency of accidents. People have a speed-sensitivity comfort zone where they are maximally attentive to their driving. Going too far out of this zone (either higher or lower) results in attention issues which translates to increased accidents - go too fast and the driver is nervous, feels out of control, etc...go too slow and the driver pays less attention to their driving & the surrounding environment...in either case the accident frequency goes up.

 

The comfort zone is different by driver, by vehicle, by roadway, and also by level of other traffic. So it's very situational. Fortunately for most people it hovers around a fairly consistent speed by roadway - that's the reason for the 85 percentile measure for assessing appropriate speed limits. If you make the limit too slow, the increase in frequency will offset (in aggregate) any improvements in severity.

 

Speed kills...Slow kills too...

 

Jim

[Rotor]

There is way too much here to really get detailed about. Litterally, studies exist on many of these topics describing crash causation factors. In the county where I live, the long straight roads - I 95 and US 1 - account for the majority of fatal crashes. That means you can expect to see more concentration of enforcement in those areas.

As far as quota's; and, purely speaking from an administrative point, traffic officers are totally different from a normal patrol officer that is required to answer a variety of calls and arrests. A traffic officers primary responsibility is traffic enforcement. If that's all they are responsible for, one would expect their activity to reflect it. In-other-words, if all they do is traffic and come in at the end of the day with one,two or even five citations, they obviously have not been doing their job. Especially when traffic is commonly one of the top complaints a department receives.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[velomoto]

Speed kills...Slow kills too...

Jim

C'mon you're killin' me!!!

[motorman587]

[KMG_365]

Hey, John!! What are you doing lurking around here eating popcorn all day??!! Get out there and write more tickets!! You've got a quota to meet! Nothin' to see here . . . move along! Let's go. Chop, chop! Time is money!

[Mike O]

Care to share the data supporting your claims this is occurring in Denver? Or is this speculation on your part?

Still waiting for that data... (munchin' on popcorn emoticon and a foot a tappin'). Funny how a lack of a little data will throw a wet towel on an argument, huh?...Or maybe we're just arguing on the principle of things, right?

 

Hmmmmm....still waitin'....care to share that data yet?

 

Mike O

[steve.foote]

Care to share the data supporting your claims this is occurring in Denver? Or is this speculation on your part?

Still waiting for that data... (munchin' on popcorn emoticon and a foot a tappin'). Funny how a lack of a little data will throw a wet towel on an argument, huh?...Or maybe we're just arguing on the principle of things, right?

 

Hmmmmm....still waitin'....care to share that data yet?

 

Mike O

 

Sorry Mike, I completely missed your post on page four.

 

If you reread my first post in this thread (post #2), you'll see that I was simply using the figures from the article referenced by barncobob. I estimated an average fine at $150, though actual fines are likely higher, but may also be lower. The math part is something I picked up at Adams Central High School back in the seventies.

[Mike O]

Steve,

 

Yes, I got the high school math part just fine (albeit I do find it humorous that you believe LEO's - and us for that matter can ride motorcycles 50 out of 52 weeks of the year .... in Denver no less). If you re-read my post what I was asking was in reference to the following statements you made:

- Yet, somehow, police departments across our country have become “profit centers” for government.

- When police officers are turned into profit centers,...

-...They may share some of the bounty with the police department...

The data to support these claims is what I was after.

 

For the record, I'm all in favor of citing drivers for breaking the law. As for your reasons to use a monetary fine vs. point system or otherwise was not the basis of CBS4's original story (their story was was clearly about 'quotas'). It's that you surmised the real reason this was being done was revenue for Denver (profit center). How do you know this (profit centers, bounties) is occurring in Denver? That's the data I'm after (not your high school mathematical calculation).

 

Mike O

[tallman]

Data?

Here's some from Aus. and BC.

 

Speed.

Go faster and crash, more likely to die.

 

Table 1 Probability of belted driver being killed or

severely injured in two car collisions

Delta V (km/h) Prob. of fatality Prob. of sev. inj. or fatality

40 0.02 0.08

50 0.05 0.16

60 0.11 0.27

70 0.21 0.40

80 0.31 0.54

90 0.41 0.65

100 0.50 0.75

 

 

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/speed.html#speedcrash

 

 

Here's one for advocates of faster speed limits, up to a point, determined by the drivers on the roadway.

http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm

 

Speed variance and crash risk

________________________________________

This graph shows that crash risk is minimized for those drivers travelling 10-15 km/h over the average speed. (Average speeds in BC are almost always over posted speeds.) Contrary to popular belief, there are more crashes at slower speeds than at faster speeds.

________________________________________

Raw speed and crash risk are not directly related, however, there is a U-shaped relationship which shows few fast drivers involved in crashes, and many more slow drivers involved in crashes.1

[Mike O]

Tim,

 

I know your post response was for Steve (I know there is LOTS of data on correlation of speed to accidents), but just to be clear, what I am looking for is data that shows Denver is profiting from the receipt of monetary fines from traffic citations. That is PROFIT (not just recouping costs of traffic safety enforcement) and that they are conscientiously raising fines or using quotas to increase revenues. That's the 'data' or proof I'm after.

 

Mike O

[MotorinLA]

Raw speed and crash risk are not directly related, however, there is a U-shaped relationship which shows few fast drivers involved in crashes, and many more slow drivers involved in crashes.1

 

From personal experience, I’ve found that many slow speed crashes occur in parking lots at speeds below 15 mph.

 

Solution = close all parking facilities immediately!

 

Hey, I just wanted to be one of the guys who made a ridiculous statement in this string too…

[velomoto]

Tim,

 

I know your post response was for Steve (I know there is LOTS of data on correlation of speed to accidents), but just to be clear, what I am looking for is data that shows Denver is profiting from the receipt of monetary fines from traffic citations. That is PROFIT (not just recouping costs of traffic safety enforcement) and that they are conscientiously raising fines or using quotas to increase revenues. That's the 'data' or proof I'm after.

Mike O

Mike, I think it's all a case of urban legend... but who knows, maybe Denver's been secretly using this profit center to subsidize the Bronco ticket prices!

 

Greg

[BailyD]

I wonder how they determined the red "crash risk curve"? What crash data are they using and how was it gathered? From thousands of crash reports that I completed I found it difficult to to "legally" attribute speed as the causing factor. It almost always ends up as "driver inattention". If we cite speed we must do so on a factual basis. There are means for doing this, but they will only be employed on the most serious crashes.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, speed is correlated to stopping distance. The faster the vehicle is traveling, the more stopping distance it will need in case of an emergency situation. Reaction time, on average, will remain the same so two drivers traveling at different speeds will each have different stopping distances. The faster car will take longer and may contribute to an impact with the vehicle it's trying to avoid. Everyone's who's been driving for sometime has been involved in a close call. They managed to stop their vehicle just in time. Increase that speed and it may not have been a close call.

 

The second part of that graph shows drivers at greatest risks are going slower than the speed limit? Wouldn't it be logical to say that EVERY driver has to be traveling at a slower speed at some point? The fast and the slow will each being going 35 mph, but where the slow remains slow, the faster drivers will continue on until they reach their desired speed. More drivers going slow than fast, more vehicles involved in slow speed collisions? How about the idea that the faster drivers hit slower cars?

 

I'm skeptical of data and how it's gathered. Garbage in, garbage out. I gather raw data that's used in these reports all of the time. No one questions how accurate this data is. The reporting system has it's flaws and the people who GATHER it know it. The people who take the data and make all of the graphs rarely question the validity of the numbers they recieve.

[leikam]

The second part of that graph shows drivers at greatest risks are going slower than the speed limit?

 

No, actually it intends to show that it's riskier to travel significantly slower than the flow of traffic. The blue line isn't the speed limit; it's the average speed of free-flowing traffic. Around here, that's about +15.

 

But you're right about the source. I didn't see where they got their data or how it was analyzed and they don't exactly look impartial.

[steve.foote]

Steve,

 

Yes, I got the high school math part just fine (albeit I do find it humorous that you believe LEO's - and us for that matter can ride motorcycles 50 out of 52 weeks of the year .... in Denver no less). If you re-read my post what I was asking was in reference to the following statements you made:

- Yet, somehow, police departments across our country have become “profit centers” for government.

- When police officers are turned into profit centers,...

-...They may share some of the bounty with the police department...

The data to support these claims is what I was after.

 

For the record, I'm all in favor of citing drivers for breaking the law. As for your reasons to use a monetary fine vs. point system or otherwise was not the basis of CBS4's original story (their story was was clearly about 'quotas'). It's that you surmised the real reason this was being done was revenue for Denver (profit center). How do you know this (profit centers, bounties) is occurring in Denver? That's the data I'm after (not your high school mathematical calculation).

 

Mike O

 

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from here. It's a well worn debate tactic to keep demanding data in order to try to deflect the conversation away from it's original point. But, I believe that is not your intent.

 

As I said in my previous post, the data you are searching for is in the link from the original posters post. The data points from that article are "two dozen motorcycle officers" being required to meet a quota of writing "sixteen tickets per shift." I pulled the "$150 ticket" value right out of clean air, but that number is backed up by some personal experience.

 

The rest of is simple math, which I'm not going to bother to explain.

 

The premise of this thread is about quota's. I illustrated how these quota's can create, uh, shall we say, profit. How this profit, value, income, revenue, bounty, wealth, cash-duckineros, whatever you want to call it, effects the people who benefit from it is the real core of the arguement.

[Mike O]

...Hmm, I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from here. It's a well worn debate tactic to keep demanding data in order to try to deflect the conversation away from it's original point. But, I believe that is not your intent.

...

The premise of this thread is about quota's. I illustrated how these quota's can create, uh, shall we say, profit. How this profit, value, income, revenue, bounty, wealth, cash-duckineros, whatever you want to call it, effects the people who benefit from it is the real core of the argument.

Steve,

 

No, I'm not trying to use some less-than-clever technique to rat hole the discussion nor do I care about correlation of excessive speed to accidents, nor your 'high school math' calculated data. If I might try to synthesize your premise:

 

Traffic ticket quotas were instituted by Denver to generate a profit.

 

The key word above is 'profit' (a term you've consistently used). Is this not the crux of your arguments? The data (or proof if you wish to call it that) that I am asking is to substantiate that claim. I'm not looking to get in a debate over how much a ticket costs or how many points, or whether they should even use monetary fines or whether supervisors should use quotas to insure traffic officers are doing their job. The premise to your argument is that Denver (and maybe other cities) has affected a deliberate policy to increase revenues (make a profit) off traffic violation tickets. What proof/data do we have of this?

 

Regards,

 

Mike O

[steve.foote]

What proof/data do we have of this?

 

Mike, we're just chasing our tails now. I don't know how to present it more clearly.

[RPG]

I think one can coorelate the ticket/revenue industry to the cigarette industry/debacle in this country.

 

The major cost in a pack of cigarettes is various taxes, all advertised as revenue to pay for programs to help people quit smoking. But in reality most of that money is channeled through different government agencies who take their cut and so on down the line.

 

One must then ask what the Gubment would do if everyone stopped smoking? Well, the red flags would go up and other revenue would have to be found to cover the losses since that money is always counted as 'coming in'.

 

Isn't the ticket/revenue system the same or at least similar?

 

The ultimate goal is not to one day arrive at utopia where nobody speeds, hence the end result would be a loss of revenue. Gubment's don't want that I can assure you.

 

Or think of it another way. The money ain't in finding a cure for cancer, it's in the treatment.......

 

In Michigan, the current gas tax is $.19/gallon on top of the 6% sales tax. So for a $3.00 gallon of gas, $.37 goes to the State. And the state is starting to complain that 'people ain't drivin like they used ta', and 'we're gonna have to get that money sommer's else'. Any doubt that cops will be writing more tickets????

 

it ain't Rocket Science folks.....

 

 

RPG

[DiggerJim]

In Michigan, the current gas tax is $.19/gallon on top of the 6% sales tax. So for a $3.00 gallon of gas, $.37 goes to the State. And the state is starting to complain that 'people ain't drivin like they used ta', and 'we're gonna have to get that money sommer's else'. Any doubt that cops will be writing more tickets????

In CT it's 45 cents/gal. On top of that there's another 7% "gross receipts" tax (heading to 8.1%) and rising to offset the reduction in the per gallon tax. There was a proposal during the last legislative session to increase the gas tax to make up for the reduction in driving occurring due to higher gas prices

 

They decided against raising the gas tax (per gallon) and increased the gross receipts tax because "oil companies are the ones paying the gross receipts tax, not consumers"!

[dmk]

The second part of that graph shows drivers at greatest risks are going slower than the speed limit?

 

No, actually it intends to show that it's riskier to travel significantly slower than the flow of traffic. The blue line isn't the speed limit; it's the average speed of free-flowing traffic. Around here, that's about +15.

 

But you're right about the source. I didn't see where they got their data or how it was analyzed and they don't exactly look impartial.

 

It looks consistent with my experience though. Where I live, most accidents seem to occur on the highways during rush hour, most commonly in the right hand lanes near exits where traffic is merging on and off and trucks block sight lines. It just so happens that people who attempt to travel in these lanes do so at a slower than average speed.

 

What's really counter-intuitive is that drivers who leave greater than average following distance also seem to cause more accidents, although that may be somewhat unique to the Boston area. The typical scenario goes something like this: Driver A leaves a larger than normal gap in front. Driver B gets impatient and tailgates driver A. Driver C pulls into the gap left by driver A. Driver A reacts by hitting brakes. This often results in driver A getting rear-ended, or causing all of the following cars to pack up like an accordion on the brakes until somebody else gets rear-ended.

 

I can also see why it may be safer to be moving a little faster than average, because you only have to worry about what's happening in front of you. I think most people feel more comfortable and safe passing traffic than being passed. I also think that since more people prefer to be faster than average than slower than average, there is a tendency for average speeds to rise on highways in the absence of speed enforcement, which has little to do with people wanting to get to their destination faster.

 

Just my $.02,

 

Dave

[motorman587]

Wow did not know that so many knew, why,how, to do my job. Thanks

[harleyjohn45]

Wow did not know that so many knew, why,how, to do my job. Thanks

 

and you were thinking that none of us could do your job. lol

 

in florida if you drive illegally, they take your license, but if you are here illegally, they will give you a license.

[KMG_365]

This has been a very interesting and enlightening thread! Thanks for all the very good (and civil! ) discussion. We in San DIego City have been facing a (recent? ) budget crunch due to the City Council underfunding a negotiated pension benefit to the local Police and Fire (and then turning around and blaming the Police and Fire Unions for them underfunding it ). This has resulted in a huge number of well qualified, really good LEO's hemorrhaging to neighboring cities. Even my incredibly stingy City of Coronado lost a few of their really good LEO's to the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) since they could make a LOT more every month (with waaaaaaay better retirement bene's to boot) being a "campus cop".

 

The result for the City of San Diego was a drop in ticket/budget revenue from the decrease in Traffic/Motors Units on the street writing (speeding) tickets (and a bit to general morale issues as well, I'll warrant) to the point where the City was claiming it was making the budget deficit problem even worse! It was reported in the local "Mullet Wrapper" (The Union Tribune--about as "Far and imBalanced" as "Faux News", so I won't vouch for its accuracy ) how the lack of officers on the streets writing tickets and the resulting decreased revenue has adversely impacted the PD's budget. I don't think we have any SD Motors/Traffic LEO's on the site, but perhaps I'll make some inquiries at work and see if anyone knows how it plays out here locally. Every state and even perhaps every county would handle such revenue differently so it's likely not as helpful to draw conclusions across state lines.

 

(Hmmmmm . . . I wonder if "drawing conclusions across State Lines" is illegal? )

[steve.foote]

Jamie, you are probably right about different muni's handling the fine revenue in different ways, but the money is going somewhere. I would be very interested in following the trail.

[ghaverkamp]

Jamie, you are probably right about different muni's handling the fine revenue in different ways, but the money is going somewhere. I would be very interested in following the trail.

 

Well, this is where I'd point you at the actual article the original news story was about in the other thread. It goes into some of those details, specifically wrt Massachuetts and California.

[steve.foote]

Greg, I read that article, but it didn't really go into detail about how the money moves through the system, and where it is ultimately distributed.

 

My gut feeling is that will turn out to be quite complicated and difficult to follow.

[Mike O]

Greg, I read that article, but it didn't really go into detail about how the money moves through the system, and where it is ultimately distributed.

 

My gut feeling is that will turn out to be quite complicated and difficult to follow.

 

BINGO...We have a winner (and you've now answered my question)

 

That was what I was looking for when I asked about 'proof' or 'data'. There is a big difference between 'believing' something and 'knowing' it. The reality is that you BELIEVE municipalities are doing this as a profit motive. But there is no proof. Unless it can be proven that there is a 'profit' made somewhere in the system (i.e. the net to operate traffic enforcement is greater than the cost) or someone at the municipal level explicitly states 'profit' as a motive, I don't see how anyone can ever prove this. And you openly state above that your 'gut feeling is that will turn out to be quite complicated and difficult to follow'. That is the data I was looking for you to divulge. It doesn't appear to exist. (and yes, I've read the other thread as well). And yet, it's the basis for your 'government corrupts by using monetary fines' argument.

 

Thanks...I'll leave this alone now. Thanks for being patient with my questions.

 

Mike O

[tallman]

Mike, Steve,

Following the $$$ is not hard in some cases.

Small, rural towns, such as Waldo, GA., for example, generated XX% of total operating budget from speeding tickets.

In other places, large, urban, the trail is more difficult.

This would apply to many forms of revenue, not just speeding tickets.

The word "profit" has many meanings.

Did/does Waldo profit financially from speeding tickets. Yes. without a doubt.

Does Denver?

Yes.

From the POV that citizens who don't speed see the enforcement as a positive step to correct illegal behavior, and an improvement in their quality of life.

Yes.

From the POV of citizens who do speed, but feel as if they aren't the worst of the bunch and are entitled to a bit of leeway. "Look Edith, they caught that SOB who passed me like I was standing still."

Yes.

From a publicist's POV.

People driving in Denver know about this and will hopefully react accordingly.

 

Does Society "profit" from a crackdown on illegal activity?

And no matter how we slice it, perfume it, excuse/justify/rationalize it, speeding is illegal.

 

Some municipalities have seen a reduction in revenue due to changes in: population, property taxes, legislative changes, etc...

Some have resorted to traffic enforcement as a means to generate revenue.

Does Denver make a profit from this system?

I submit it doesn't matter.

They aren't in business to make a profit, are they?

Best wishes.

[steve.foote]

Mike, I think you misread my post.

 

I don't "believe" that the Denver police are generating revenue with speeding tickets, I KNOW they are. It says so in the article, referenced by the OP, written by Brian Maass of the CBS4 news team titled "DPD Creates Ticket Quotas For Some Officers."

 

What I don't know is exactly where the money is going, and who is benefiting from it. That's what I'd like to know, and I BELIEVE that it will be a complicated and difficult trail to follow.

[Dave McReynolds]

There is a big difference between 'believing' something and 'knowing' it. The reality is that you BELIEVE municipalities are doing this as a profit motive. But there is no proof. Unless it can be proven that there is a 'profit' made somewhere in the system (i.e. the net to operate traffic enforcement is greater than the cost) or someone at the municipal level explicitly states 'profit' as a motive, I don't see how anyone can ever prove this.

 

I'll put on my accountant's hat here, and ask why proof should be necessary? As Jamie's post above illustrates, tickets generate revenue, a fact which doesn't require further proof, and when the revenue stream dries up, questions are asked as to the reasons why, leading to pressure being put on the source of the revenue to do something about it. "Profit," in the accounting sense, meaning an excess of revenue over expenses, seems irrelevant. What is relevant is that tickets generate revenue which fund traffic enforcement, and whatever other programs manage to get their fingers into the cookie jar. When those programs face funding cuts because their revenue stream dries up, pressure is exerted on the source of the revenue stream to do something about it. Inevitably.

 

The same thing happens regardless of what the revenue stream might be. In the paper this morning, it was reported that CA income tax collections might be falling, so people are already running around trying to protect their sacred cows from being cut. Pressure is being exerted to replace or augment the falling income tax revenue so programs don't have to be cut. Counter pressure is being exerted to leave the tax rates alone and cut programs if necessary. Which is the political process in action.

 

Given that it is inevitable that pressure will be exerted to replace falling revenue from ANY source, which I don't think requires proof, the question is, whether it is healthy to have that pressure to maintain a certain level of ticket revenue, regardless of the causes of falling ticket revenue, or whether it is better to remove the financial pressure and instead focus on what makes sense to maximize traffic safety.

 

Clearly, there are upsides and downsides both ways. Pressure to write a certain level of tickets for the sake of maintaining a revenue stream will inevitably lead to tickets being written for things that might technically be violations of the law but have little impact on public safety. On the other hand, traffic fines are probably a deterent to illegal behavior, and why shouldn't they be used to fund the enforcement effort? In my mind, quotas push the balance in the direction of mindless ticketing and away from enforcing public safety.