Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

[UberXY]

Yesterday I had an unscheduled roadside chat with a state trooper. 55 in a 45 in an area so rural they have one trooper covering 540 square miles. My last ticket was 21 years ago - not a bad record, all things considered. I am not outraged, though it did kind of tarnish an otherwise awesome day of riding.

 

Anyhow, the officer volunteered to me that ordinarily he would have cut me the slack, but he's been told by his management that rising fuel costs mean he has to be more productive with his gasoline usage, and the measure of his productivity is citations issued.

 

Watch that right hand this summer.

 

BTW the cop was a motorcyclist and was very interested in my Aerostich.

[upflying]

Poor judgment for the trooper to divulge his motivations for issuing a stub. Officially the reasons for issuing a ticket is traffic safety, not revenue enhancement.

Unofficially, the pressure is on to write more tickets to compensate for loss of revenue due to the recession.

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify it was issued in the interest of traffic safety.

[Dave McReynolds]

Poor judgment for the trooper to divulge his motivations for issuing a stub.

 

Maybe poor judgement for him personally, from the standpoint of his own performance evaluation. However, from the standpoint of society, I think it was excellent judgement. I wish we were all more honest with each other. Stating that you are issuing a ticket for traffic safety reasons, when neither one of you believes that, breeds cynicism.

 

If I were stopped for a minor traffic violation and the officer told me that he was stopping me for something he ordinarily wouldn't have written a ticket for, but due to funding deficits in whatever government entity he represented he had been instructed to write as many tickets as possible as a way of bringing in revenue, I might not like it, but I would respect him more as an individual and the system more for instructing him to say it than I would if he gave me some BS saftety reason.

[4wheeldog]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify it was issued in the interest of traffic safety.

 

My wife got a 10 over ticket (50 in a 40) under very similar circumstances last week. She was on a stretch that we travel more than twice a day, most days of the week. In 6 years, I have never (Not once) seen a LEO on this stretch. They had 5 cars, and an officer on foot with the radar unit.

 

I am glad it was her, not me......I never go that slow on that stretch.

[upflying]

Professional LEO decorum, professionalism, ethics, behavior and etiquette means not divulging information to the public which brings discredit and disrepute to the government and public he serves. If LEO's revealed to driver's that they are being cited because of government cash flow trouble, he/she would be in the lieutenant's office and out of job. It's not deception to tell people they are being cited in the interest of traffic safety, it' just not the whole truth.

If you hired a lawyer, would you want him/her to tell you they plan to take an expensive vacation on the retainer you are paying? True, but not ethical or professional.

[lawnchairboy]

Maybe poor judgement for him personally, from the standpoint of his own performance evaluation. However, from the standpoint of society, I think it was excellent judgement. I wish we were all more honest with each other. Stating that you are issuing a ticket for traffic safety reasons, when neither one of you believes that, breeds cynicism.

 

If I were stopped for a minor traffic violation and the officer told me that he was stopping me for something he ordinarily wouldn't have written a ticket for, but due to funding deficits in whatever government entity he represented he had been instructed to write as many tickets as possible as a way of bringing in revenue, I might not like it, but I would respect him more as an individual and the system more for instructing him to say it than I would if he gave me some BS saftety reason.

 

 

 

That is right on.

[Paul Mihalka]

I think in this case the best would be to just courtously write the ticket without any explanation and no safety sermon. You broke the law, you got a ticket, sad but end of story.

[Dave McReynolds]

I think in this case the best would be to just courtously write the ticket without any explanation and no safety sermon. You broke the law, you got a ticket, sad but end of story.

 

You're probably right. Traffic enforcement for the primary purpose of making money (e.g. red light camera citations for not completely stopping when making a right turn) is becomming increasingly common in California, and probably everywhere else. I don't have a particular problem with this, as it is generally easy enough to avoid the fine by not breaking the law. I don't like it when people at the policy level who want the extra revenue argue with straight faces that these are primarily safety measures, but hypocrisy at the LEO level could be avoided if they just state the facts and write the tickets, skipping the safety lectures. An unfortunate byproduct of this is that some people's insurance rates are going to be raised along with ticket revenues.

[upflying]

I think in this case the best would be to just courtously write the ticket without any explanation and no safety sermon. You broke the law, you got a ticket, sad but end of story.

Pretty much the way I do it. If I write a ticket, I say nothing. If you get a warning, I chew you out.

[Dave McReynolds]

Pretty much the way I do it. If I write a ticket, I say nothing. If you get a warning, I chew you out.

 

That's been pretty much my experience on the receiving end of things. One odd exception to that was when I was returning from Lake Tahoe late one night a few months ago. I was driving along about where the Lake Tahoe airport is, generally minding my own business, when I notice blinking lights in my rear view mirror. I pull over and a CHP officer comes up to the window and does his usual thing with license, registration, etc, and says he had me on radar going 49 in a 45 zone, which was no doubt correct. He asks me a few more questions, and sends me on my way without a ticket.

 

There was a lot of unspoken information exchanged there, I have to assume. He may have wondered if I was drunk, although he didn't test me in any way. In fact, the only reason I was driving through SLT late was because it took that long for me to get there from Utah. I'm not sure why he pulled me over, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because I was going 49 in a 45 zone.

[Paul Mihalka]

"If you get a warning, I chew you out." I can take that any time!

[DiggerJim]

You're probably right. Traffic enforcement for the primary purpose of making money (e.g. red light camera citations for not completely stopping when making a right turn) is becomming increasingly common in California, and probably everywhere else. I don't have a particular problem with this, as it is generally easy enough to avoid the fine by not breaking the law. I don't like it when people at the policy level who want the extra revenue argue with straight faces that these are primarily safety measures, but hypocrisy at the LEO level could be avoided if they just state the facts and write the tickets, skipping the safety lectures. An unfortunate byproduct of this is that some people's insurance rates are going to be raised along with ticket revenues.

 

I saw a study last year (UCal Berkley maybe?) that showed a direct correlation between increased value of tickets issued and increased budget pressures for municipalities. Usually they claim that it's safety and can't possibly be because of revenue because the revenue goes to the state & not the municipality...except that the money in the state gets redistributed back to the cities & towns so the more $ coming into the state, the more $ can go out to the cities & towns.

 

CT is now proposing the addition of traffic light cameras (for safety of course) but only in cities with >60,000 in population (there are 8 of those I think - which happen to also be the most cash-strapped). The rules are that the town gets 70% of the fine, the state 20% and a special road safety fund (whatever that is) gets 10% so they can argue it's about safety, just not that it's all about safety. And to complete the hypocrisy, the same ticket for running a red given by a cop carries points & the resultant insurance increase...the camera ticket carries no points & no insurance uptick. The cynics believe this is to placate the public so they don't complain about the law or fight the tickets. But they're just cynics

[dba]

I think in this case the best would be to just courtously write the ticket without any explanation and no safety sermon. You broke the law, you got a ticket, sad but end of story.

Pretty much the way I do it. If I write a ticket, I say nothing. If you get a warning, I chew you out.

 

That's the way I was tought a long time ago. The motorist doesn't get a ticket and a lecture during the same stop.

[upflying]

Pretty much the way I do it. If I write a ticket, I say nothing. If you get a warning, I chew you out.

 

That's been pretty much my experience on the receiving end of things. One odd exception to that was when I was returning from Lake Tahoe late one night a few months ago. I was driving along about where the Lake Tahoe airport is, generally minding my own business, when I notice blinking lights in my rear view mirror. I pull over and a CHP officer comes up to the window and does his usual thing with license, registration, etc, and says he had me on radar going 49 in a 45 zone, which was no doubt correct. He asks me a few more questions, and sends me on my way without a ticket.

 

There was a lot of unspoken information exchanged there, I have to assume. He may have wondered if I was drunk, although he didn't test me in any way. In fact, the only reason I was driving through SLT late was because it took that long for me to get there from Utah. I'm not sure why he pulled me over, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because I was going 49 in a 45 zone.

 

Correct, the officer used 49 in a 45 only as probable cause to stop you. Late at night, he was trolling for drunks going home from the casinos. US50 by the airport is the pinch point for all Tahoe traffic heading over Echo summit. LEO's can tell at the driver window whether you are sober or not.

 

[notacop]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify

 

This from someone I take to be a LEO? With that reasoning, most of your law enforcement must be off the top of your head too.

Speed limit, is as posted. Not what you feel like today.

Consider yourself up for need of retraining. Sounds way too capricious to me

That's like suggesting a 10 amp fuse is good for 13-17 amps because you like it.

[KDeline]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify

 

This from someone I take to be a LEO? With that reasoning, most of your law enforcement must be off the top of your head too.

Speed limit, is as posted. Not what you feel like today.

Consider yourself up for need of retraining. Sounds way too capricious to me

That's like suggesting a 10 amp fuse is good for 13-17 amps because you like it.

 

 

Finally someone else that agrees with me. It's that descretion thing they get to use again. Had a real long debate about that a while back.

 

 

 

 

[Shaman97]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify

 

This from someone I take to be a LEO? With that reasoning, most of your law enforcement must be off the top of your head too.

Speed limit, is as posted. Not what you feel like today.

Consider yourself up for need of retraining. Sounds way too capricious to me

That's like suggesting a 10 amp fuse is good for 13-17 amps because you like it.

 

Laxative not kicking in?

[Mike]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify

 

This from someone I take to be a LEO? With that reasoning, most of your law enforcement must be off the top of your head too.

Speed limit, is as posted. Not what you feel like today.

Consider yourself up for need of retraining. Sounds way too capricious to me

That's like suggesting a 10 amp fuse is good for 13-17 amps because you like it.

 

Laxative not kicking in?

 

Kinda what I was thinking. Personally, I find it refreshing to know that there are LEOs who have the common sense to recognize that enforcing the "letter of the law" is not, in every case, the best way to serve the public or to advance safety.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Poor judgment for the trooper to divulge his motivations for issuing a stub. Officially the reasons for issuing a ticket is traffic safety, not revenue enhancement.

Unofficially, the pressure is on to write more tickets to compensate for loss of revenue due to the recession.

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify it was issued in the interest of traffic safety.

 

With all due respect:

 

Officially, driving while talking on the phone or texting is just as, or more dangerous than driving drunk. We have all seen the multiple studies that show this. Officially, the revenue generated by those citations is only slight percentages of the revenue generated by speeding tickets. One can easily draw the conclusion that UnOfficially, the practice is to ticket the speeders because there's more money in it, even if it is not as dangerous as talking on the phone/texting while driving. So UnOfficially, traffic enforcement has very little to do with safety and very much to do with revenue generation.

 

No offense to the LEOs, but I see it every day now, and the evidence is apparent.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

You're probably right. Traffic enforcement for the primary purpose of making money (e.g. red light camera citations for not completely stopping when making a right turn) is becomming increasingly common in California, and probably everywhere else. I don't have a particular problem with this, as it is generally easy enough to avoid the fine by not breaking the law. I don't like it when people at the policy level who want the extra revenue argue with straight faces that these are primarily safety measures, but hypocrisy at the LEO level could be avoided if they just state the facts and write the tickets, skipping the safety lectures. An unfortunate byproduct of this is that some people's insurance rates are going to be raised along with ticket revenues.

 

I saw a study last year (UCal Berkley maybe?) that showed a direct correlation between increased value of tickets issued and increased budget pressures for municipalities. Usually they claim that it's safety and can't possibly be because of revenue because the revenue goes to the state & not the municipality...except that the money in the state gets redistributed back to the cities & towns so the more $ coming into the state, the more $ can go out to the cities & towns.

 

CT is now proposing the addition of traffic light cameras (for safety of course) but only in cities with >60,000 in population (there are 8 of those I think - which happen to also be the most cash-strapped). The rules are that the town gets 70% of the fine, the state 20% and a special road safety fund (whatever that is) gets 10% so they can argue it's about safety, just not that it's all about safety. And to complete the hypocrisy, the same ticket for running a red given by a cop carries points & the resultant insurance increase...the camera ticket carries no points & no insurance uptick. The cynics believe this is to placate the public so they don't complain about the law or fight the tickets. But they're just cynics

 

San Francisco has conducted studies that show a decline in veh. vs. veh. accidents and auto vs. pedestrian accidents in EVERY intersection where they have placed a red light camera. I'll see if I can dig up a link.

[upflying]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify

 

This from someone I take to be a LEO? With that reasoning, most of your law enforcement must be off the top of your head too.

Speed limit, is as posted. Not what you feel like today.

Consider yourself up for need of retraining. Sounds way too capricious to me

That's like suggesting a 10 amp fuse is good for 13-17 amps because you like it.

Huh? So you wish to be cited for 26 mph in a 25 zone? That is the law.

This California law gives LEO's some discretion. It also gives violators some defense.

 

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed

greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,

visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the

highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of

persons or property.

 

 

Your move.

[tallman]

Which is why you can be ticketed for going under the speed limit, but too fast for conditions in Florida.

I only wish that the commuters going 10-15 mph under the speed limit would get stopped.

On the bike not so much a problem.

In the car...

When I commute thru the National forest it is 2 lanes and 55mph until entering home county where it drops to 45 mph.

There are few residences or cross roads.

Makes no sense especially when you get to the end of the isolated raod and turn onto another 2 lane road with traffic and the speed limit is 55 mph again.

I appreciate the FHP guys who just flash lights when they pass me going the other direction at a bit over the posted limit but haven't seen another car for 13.9 to 21.6 miles.

Wish more things worked like that.

[Natche]

I think in this case the best would be to just courtously write the ticket without any explanation and no safety sermon. You broke the law, you got a ticket, sad but end of story.

Pretty much the way I do it. If I write a ticket, I say nothing. If you get a warning, I chew you out.

 

I think I'd rather be chewed out!

[4wheeldog]

Pretty much the way I do it. If I write a ticket, I say nothing. If you get a warning, I chew you out.

 

I think I'd rather be chewed out!

 

+1. I have been chewed on by the best. I can listen to the rest.

[Dave McReynolds]

You're probably right. Traffic enforcement for the primary purpose of making money (e.g. red light camera citations for not completely stopping when making a right turn) is becomming increasingly common in California, and probably everywhere else. I don't have a particular problem with this, as it is generally easy enough to avoid the fine by not breaking the law. I don't like it when people at the policy level who want the extra revenue argue with straight faces that these are primarily safety measures, but hypocrisy at the LEO level could be avoided if they just state the facts and write the tickets, skipping the safety lectures. An unfortunate byproduct of this is that some people's insurance rates are going to be raised along with ticket revenues.

 

I saw a study last year (UCal Berkley maybe?) that showed a direct correlation between increased value of tickets issued and increased budget pressures for municipalities. Usually they claim that it's safety and can't possibly be because of revenue because the revenue goes to the state & not the municipality...except that the money in the state gets redistributed back to the cities & towns so the more $ coming into the state, the more $ can go out to the cities & towns.

 

CT is now proposing the addition of traffic light cameras (for safety of course) but only in cities with >60,000 in population (there are 8 of those I think - which happen to also be the most cash-strapped). The rules are that the town gets 70% of the fine, the state 20% and a special road safety fund (whatever that is) gets 10% so they can argue it's about safety, just not that it's all about safety. And to complete the hypocrisy, the same ticket for running a red given by a cop carries points & the resultant insurance increase...the camera ticket carries no points & no insurance uptick. The cynics believe this is to placate the public so they don't complain about the law or fight the tickets. But they're just cynics

 

San Francisco has conducted studies that show a decline in veh. vs. veh. accidents and auto vs. pedestrian accidents in EVERY intersection where they have placed a red light camera. I'll see if I can dig up a link.

 

I've always intuitively believed that red light cameras for the purpose of ticketing people who run red lights across an intersection are a useful safety measure, although it's been argued to the contrary by other members of this board. But, as I stated in my post above, I find it a difficult stretch to believe that red light cameras for the purpose of ticketing people who don't come to a complete stop before making a right turn are anything but a revenue generator.

 

True, you can train people to come to a complete stop before making a right turn if you ticket enough of them, and probably raise some revenue until people get the message. However, I wonder if the long-term effects will be to just increase traffic congestion without any corresponding safety benefits?

[motorman587]

Have not gotten that memo.............lol......last time that gas went up where were told to stop idling the the cars. The police has the highest budget in fuel.

[AviP]

Gas prices! Quarterly quotas! Annual budget shortfall! Budget cuts! It's all the same. The government runs for us but uses semantics in the law to run over us.

[moshe_levy]

'Round here, they've beefed up building inspectors, who now ride around town looking for people who didn't get the proper permits before changing a toilet bowl in their house or whatever, and then slap 'em with fines and of course raise their property taxes ($12k and rising)... Fun, fun, fun!

 

-MKL

[Bob Palin]

'Round here, they've beefed up building inspectors, who now ride around town looking for people who didn't get the proper permits before changing a toilet bowl in their house or whatever, and then slap 'em with fines and of course raise their property taxes ($12k and rising)... Fun, fun, fun!

 

-MKL

They used to do that a lot in some cities in California, people wouldn't get a permit for a new roof, really quite easy to spot...

[dba]

I've always intuitively believed that red light cameras for the purpose of ticketing people who run red lights across an intersection are a useful safety measure, although it's been argued to the contrary by other members of this board. But, as I stated in my post above, I find it a difficult stretch to believe that red light cameras for the purpose of ticketing people who don't come to a complete stop before making a right turn are anything but a revenue generator.

 

True, you can train people to come to a complete stop before making a right turn if you ticket enough of them, and probably raise some revenue until people get the message. However, I wonder if the long-term effects will be to just increase traffic congestion without any corresponding safety benefits?

 

The red light runners probably cause the most carnage within cities. Last time I checked, it’s the most expensive minimum fine here in California. I spent a lot of time writing red light runners, following too close and right of way violations. In my city, these were the biggies for crashes. Although I was radar certified, I didn’t use it a lot as it was just too easy to sit, estimate someone’s speed then pull the trigger to confirm my estimate. I did use it when I had the “Stats” talk with my supervisor. In half a shift I could have my required numbers and the supervisor would be off my back.

 

Part of the problem with cameras is they take away the fundamental provision in US jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some locales are removing cameras due to legal actions being brought against them for this very reason. It’s hard to defend the cameras solely as a safety measure when a guy going 100 mph on the freeway gets his photo taken and a ticket in the mail three weeks later. Where’s the instant safety measure it that?

 

[Ken H.]

Part of the problem with cameras is they take away the fundamental provision in US jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some locales are removing cameras due to legal actions being brought against them for this very reason. It’s hard to defend the cameras solely as a safety measure when a guy going 100 mph on the freeway gets his photo taken and a ticket in the mail three weeks later. Where’s the instant safety measure it that?

Don’t come to Canada then, they are everywhere! Almost every major intersection in every city has a camera. It tickets both run red and speed through on yellow. (And lots of speed zone cameras in hot spots too). The registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for its operation at all times regardless of who’s driving. (Although they can name someone else as the driver at the time if they wish.)

 

And you know what, I almost never see a runner, on yellows even. here. Where as you see them all the time in the States. It’s all about creating a critical mass of having enough cameras that there becomes an expectation that if you run it; you WILL get a ticket. Bottom line (admitted antidotal) evidence to me – those $380 in the mail tickets for being a runner really DO work to create behavioral modifications!

 

And if that saves me or my wife from being T-boned – that’s a good thing.

 

 

[rad]

..........And you know what, I almost never see a runner, on yellows even. here. Where as you see them all the time in the States............

 

Put me down as a big fan of cameras at intersections; I wish every intersection had them. As for using them for speed enforcement, let's not carried away with these things

[Urban Surfer]

If you are doing more that 40 kmh over hear, they can take your bike, you don't get it back by paying a fine. They sell it.

I may end up riding a moped.

[Lmar]

In response to:

Poster: Urban Surfer

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

 

If you are doing more that 40 kmh over hear, they can take your bike, you don't get it back by paying a fine. They sell it.

I may end up riding a moped.

 

Is that something new??

[David13]

 

Part of the problem with cameras is they take away the fundamental provision in US jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some locales are removing cameras due to legal actions being brought against them for this very reason. It’s hard to defend the cameras solely as a safety measure when a guy going 100 mph on the freeway gets his photo taken and a ticket in the mail three weeks later. Where’s the instant safety measure it that?

 

It's not really a fundamental provision. It's a presumption. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

(The court of public opinion makes it's own judgment.)

What is a presumption? ... It's a fiction.

When you are caught dead to rights, by the camera, by the leo who closely observes it, or by any other means, you will be found guilty in a court of law.

Give it up, pay the fine, and drive more safely in the future.

The life you save may be mine.

dc

[tallman]

Proposed bill to ban them in Florida on front page today.

 

Of course our city just finished installing them.

 

[Mike]

I'm not a fan of the cameras. While logic tells me that they must prevent collisions, the statistical evidence is, at best, mixed.

 

However, my objections are based in my concerns about private, for-profit firms becoming involved in law enforcement, and in our seeming giddiness about turning into a society subject to constant surveillance. I believe we have embarked on a voyage that will fundamentally change the relationship of the individual to the state, and we've done it solely for the benefit of short-term rewards.

[Mister Tee]

A 10 over ticket in a rural, remote area is a stretch to justify

 

This from someone I take to be a LEO? With that reasoning, most of your law enforcement must be off the top of your head too.

Speed limit, is as posted. Not what you feel like today.

Consider yourself up for need of retraining. Sounds way too capricious to me

That's like suggesting a 10 amp fuse is good for 13-17 amps because you like it.

Huh? So you wish to be cited for 26 mph in a 25 zone? That is the law.

This California law gives LEO's some discretion. It also gives violators some defense.

 

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed

greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,

visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the

highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of

persons or property.

 

 

Your move.

 

Or, stated another way, a posted speed limit in a Prima Facia zone is not absolute, and the Basic Speed Law (VC 22350) applies, the safe speed being at the discretion of the officer. A posted maximum speed where VC 22349(a) also applies in addition to VC 22350, on the other hand, is absolute.

 

I think that's where the poster's confusion was.

[Ken H.]

However, my objections our seeming giddiness about turning into a society subject to constant surveillance.

How’s the saying go, “If your not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t be worried about being seen not doing it.”

 

But this is probably straying too far into politics for here though.

 

[Urban Surfer]

In response to:

Poster: Urban Surfer

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

 

If you are doing more that 40 kmh over hear, they can take your bike, you don't get it back by paying a fine. They sell it.

I may end up riding a moped.

 

Is that something new??

 

 

Yes it is, they changed the laws last year. A couple of young bucks in fast cars lost them driving up Cypress bowl on the north shore. These were high end sports cars, and two HD riders doing 140 clicks lost there bikes.

[Lmar]

In response to:

Poster: Urban Surfer

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

Originally Posted By: Lmar

In response to:

Poster: Urban Surfer

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

 

If you are doing more that 40 kmh over hear, they can take your bike, you don't get it back by paying a fine. They sell it.

I may end up riding a moped. [/Quote]

 

 

Is that something new??[/Quote]

 

 

Yes it is, they changed the laws last year. A couple of young bucks in fast cars lost them driving up Cypress bowl on the north shore. These were high end sports cars, and two HD riders doing 140 clicks lost there bikes. [/Quote]

 

WOW!! That's good to know. Thanks! I was planning to do a quick trip to Grand Forks this summer.

[Lester V]

Come on down/over. I'll buy the coffee.

[DiggerJim]

How’s the saying go, “If your not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t be worried about being seen not doing it.

Seems to me there's a potential for bathroom jokes here. But then I don't generally have an audience for that & I avoid bedroom audiences 'cause I'm pretty sure I'm not doing some of that right...or so says the wife

[Lmar]

In response to:

Poster: Lester V

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

 

Come on down/over. I'll buy the coffee.

 

We have a friend(Paula) that owns Deadwood Junction, which is near Greenwood. We were hoping to come down and see her new business.

 

When I'm get there, I'll take you up on the coffee. Thanks!!

[Urban Surfer]

In response to:

Poster: Urban Surfer

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

Originally Posted By: Lmar

In response to:

Poster: Urban Surfer

Subject: Re: Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

 

If you are doing more that 40 kmh over hear, they can take your bike, you don't get it back by paying a fine. They sell it.

I may end up riding a moped. [/Quote]

 

 

Is that something new??[/Quote]

 

 

Yes it is, they changed the laws last year. A couple of young bucks in fast cars lost them driving up Cypress bowl on the north shore. These were high end sports cars, and two HD riders doing 140 clicks lost there bikes. [/Quote]

 

WOW!! That's good to know. Thanks! I was planning to do a quick trip to Grand Forks this summer.

 

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101123/bc_forfeit_cars_101123/20101123?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

 

[upflying]

More evidence that financial motive is behind issuing traffic citations.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/01/3519405/driver-advocates-suspect-fiscal.html

[MotorinLA]

INTEGRITY - Doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.

 

ACTING LIKE AN ADULT - Taking responsibility for your own actions.

 

BEING CONSIDERATE - Putting the needs of the many before your own.

 

 

If more people tried to live by these concepts, there would be a lot less need for traffic enforcement.

 

But sure, safety has absolutely nothing to do with traffic enforcement. It's a constraint put in place by THE MAN to squeeze the little guy and keep everybody down...

 

[Dave McReynolds]

INTEGRITY - Doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.

 

ACTING LIKE AN ADULT - Taking responsibility for your own actions.

 

BEING CONSIDERATE - Putting the needs of the many before your own.

 

 

If more people tried to live by these concepts, there would be a lot less need for traffic enforcement.

 

But sure, safety has absolutely nothing to do with traffic enforcement. It's a constraint put in place by THE MAN to squeeze the little guy and keep everybody down...

 

 

Those three attributes you state are good ones to aspire to. I believe they should apply to those who enforce the law as well as those who have to obey it.

 

For example, is an agency acting with integrity when it begins enforcing traffic laws with a view to how much money it can raise? Possibly yes, in my opinion. It's certainly legal to enforce the traffic laws, and as long as the agency is honest about why it's doing it, I don't see any reflection on its integrity.

 

Is an agency acting with integrity when it begins enforcing traffic laws with a view to how much money it can raise, but says the reason is an increased concern for drivers' safety? In this case, I would have to say no.

 

People may understand the need for an agency to raise more money, but they have no respect for hypocrisy. Arbitrarily increasing enforcement of certain traffic violations that happen to produce more revenue when it hasn't proved necessary to increase the enforcement of those particular violations in the past is perceived by the public as being done to collect more revenue. If that is not the case, I think the burden is on the agencies to show otherwise.

[DiggerJim]

 

Those three attributes you state are good ones to aspire to. I believe they should apply to those who enforce the law as well as those who have to obe

I think that's the crux of the issue. If LE and the gov't really looked at their own behavior before decrying the public's wanton disregard of the law, there'd probably be a lot less need for enforcement. But when every cop you see is exceeding the speed limit (without lights/sirens) or politicians didn't keep getting caught with their pants down (literally), cynicism is cultivated.

 

I was reminded of that last week as I was out riding - I was at a light behind a cruiser and the driver was talking on the phone, hunched over to the right in fact because I could see the cord was pretty tight - must not have been long enough. I thought he might hang up when the light changed but he kept talking and drove away drifting a bit to the right & then correcting.

[upflying]

Don't know about CT, but it is legal for on-duty Ca LEO's to hold a cell phone while driving.