Rising fuel costs = more speeding enforcement?

[Selden]

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 got nailed for somewhat more over than that about 10 years ago, and told the motorcycle officer the same thing, to which he replied, "That's a hell of a lot better than I'm doing."

[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...

 

 

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.

 

Here's the problem:

Regardless of whether or not the reason is financial or safety, as long as the LEOs are not issuing tickets illegally, motorists have little real (legal) reason to bitch. They are getting caught doing something illegal. Why is it bad that more people who are doing something illegal are getting caught? I don't follow your logic. If anything, more enforcement across the board should be a more effective measure to reduce traffic violations. Some here have argued in past threads that traffic enforcement is ineffective, because most people don't get caughgt often enough when they do something wrong. This should be a positive thing.

 

Isn't everybody these days being told to do more with less?

 

If it was truely only about revenue, why do many large and mid-sized agencies only deploy a small number of traffic enforcement officers? If it was only about making money, the percentage of traffic officers to patrol officers should be much higher. LAPD - approximately 300 motor officer to some 8000-9000 officers in other assignments. In small municipalities, with only a handful of officers and a small city/town budget, revenue from traffic citations could certainly have a more significant impact. I could see the money argument being more valid in these locations. From personal experience I've also found that these agencies tend to be more likely to issue citations that are questionable. Working in a major metropolitan area, the legitimate violations are so plentiful that issuing BS tickets is completely unnecessary.

 

I try to abide by the standards listed above, so it chaps my hide when posters here attribute motivations to me and other LEOs based simply on their personal beliefs and media slant.

 

It costs cities in southern California a whole lot more money to employ a traffic officer, than any amount of revenue that officer can generate through citations. So, in the big math equation the fiscal only argument doesn't fly.

 

Reading the article about increased CHP citations, a large amount of the increase was attributed to cell phone tickets. As this is a new law and widely violated section, it only makes sense that CHP would be pounding the violators to gain compliance. The cell phone laws were based on studies of traffic collisions, which showed that cell phone use contributed to increased numbers of traffic collisions.

 

But again, I'm sure it has nothing to do with traffic safety, it is just another ploy to make money for THE MAN.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Why is it bad that more people who are doing something illegal are getting caught?

 

If speed limits were enforced strictly, so that people routinely got tickets for doing 66 mph in a 65 mph zone, people would eventually readjust their driving habits to drive at 60 mph so they wouldn't accidently stray over 65 mph and get a ticket. Since the highway was presumably designed for vehicles to go 65 mph, having the average speed be 60 mph would increase traffic congestion without any corresponding safety benefit. That would be bad.

 

If the law requiring people to come to a full stop at a red light before turning right were enforced strictly, people would eventually adjust their driving habits and come to a complete stop, so they wouldn't get a ticket. In fact, over the last week, I have observed three LEO cars drift through a right turn at a red light without stopping, perfectly safely as far as I could tell. Strictly enforcing this law would increase traffic congestion without any corresponding safety benefit. That would be bad.

 

If the two laws I mention above were strictly enforced and the LEO's indicated when they stopped people that they were being cited because they were driving unsafely, both the people being stopped and the LEO's giving the citations would know that wasn't true, which would decrease everyone's respect for the law. That would be bad.

 

If the laws were strictly enforced because the government needed more money, and the LEO's just issued citations because people were breaking the law and refused to comment on safety issues, people would assume the additional enforcement was aimed at generating more revenue, and they could either decide to live with that or they could push for changes in the law. That would be good.

[David13]

I couldn't care less why they are writing the tickets. I couldn't care less what anybody says about why they are writing more tickets, or any tickets.

What I care about, is that I would like to see them write at least 10 times more tickets.

Because even tho' last year was a good year, about 40,000 people were killed on the US roads. And there were about 2 million, (2,000,000) traffic accidents.

So maybe if they write more tickets, people will drive more safely, and I won't get killed.

dc

[DiggerJim]

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

Not surprised. I guess it's all the specialized training that they get that keeps them from being distracted and a danger to the community. Mere civilians can't possibly be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

 

Those that make (or enforce) the rules tend to excuse themselves from the rules (like Congress & all manner of labor law).

 

My point stands - unequal behaviors breeds cynicism & disregard for the law. Thoreau would have a field day were he alive today.

[MotorinLA]

If speed limits were enforced strictly, so that people routinely got tickets for doing 66 mph in a 65 mph zone, people would eventually readjust their driving habits to drive at 60 mph so they wouldn't accidently stray over 65 mph and get a ticket. Since the highway was presumably designed for vehicles to go 65 mph, having the average speed be 60 mph would increase traffic congestion without any corresponding safety benefit. That would be bad.

 

I would like to know how you come to the conclusion about increase in congestion. Generally speaking, when the traffic volume is high the average speeds fall way below 65 mph, so stricter enforcement would not impact these time periods. Moderate traffic flow generally flows at about 65 mph (at least in the Los Angeles area) so impact here would also be low. The only time that 65mph+ speeds are generally observed is during light traffic flow, so how would stricter enforcement create congestion? It wouldn't. Just slower speeds. If you use the term "congestion" to describe the fact that it would take longer to get from point A to point B during low traffic flow hours, then I'd have to agree with you. Otherwise, I don't think your hypothesis of increased congestion holds water.

 

If the law requiring people to come to a full stop at a red light before turning right were enforced strictly, people would eventually adjust their driving habits and come to a complete stop, so they wouldn't get a ticket. In fact, over the last week, I have observed three LEO cars drift through a right turn at a red light without stopping, perfectly safely as far as I could tell. Strictly enforcing this law would increase traffic congestion without any corresponding safety benefit. That would be bad.

 

Again I don't buy your congestion argument. The extra 2-3 seconds it takes to come to a complete stop would in my opinion (based on many years of closely observing traffic patterns) have a negligible impact on congestion in general. Perhaps in certain locations, but not in general.

 

As to LEOs committing traffic infractions without reasonable cause, I find it distasteful and see it as an extremely poor example to the public. However, keep in mind that due to more and more civil liability being associated with "Code-3" driving (emergency lights and siren activated), many departments now have very strict policies about using lights and sirens. As a result, many officers drive in a "Code-2 High" (modified Code-3 driving, without the lights and siren) mode. This unfortunately gives a poor apparence to the public, who often think that officers can drive Code-3 whenever they want and that if they are not Code-3 then they are not going to an urgent call.

 

If the two laws I mention above were strictly enforced and the LEO's indicated when they stopped people that they were being cited because they were driving unsafely, both the people being stopped and the LEO's giving the citations would know that wasn't true, which would decrease everyone's respect for the law. That would be bad.

 

Having issued thousands of tickets, I can tell you from personal experience that a large number of drivers feel that they should be entitled to commit traffic infractions, as long as they personally deem that it is "safe". The problem with this approach is not so much that their violations are always unsafe, it is rather that eventually they'll make a miscalculation, which often leads to a traffic collision. Allowing drivers to individually decide what is safe and unsafe, is in itself unsafe. This is why issuing citations is important, because without the occasional slap on the wrist, these drivers will keep making judgement calls until someone gets hurt. Fear of a ticket is the only thing that will keep such drivers from making their personal decisions about safety (all you have to do is look at some of the previous thread on this board, where several posters have argued that they can safely travel at very high speeds).

 

If the laws were strictly enforced because the government needed more money, and the LEO's just issued citations because people were breaking the law and refused to comment on safety issues, people would assume the additional enforcement was aimed at generating more revenue, and they could either decide to live with that or they could push for changes in the law. That would be good.

 

I comment on safety issues all the time during traffic enforcement stops and frequently get told, "Well, I didn't crash, did I? So clearly it was not unsafe!"

 

Your idea is good in theory, but not so good in practice. If someone has made up their mind about the reason for enforcement, there is little a LEO can do to change their mind.

[MotorinLA]

I couldn't care less why they are writing the tickets. I couldn't care less what anybody says about why they are writing more tickets, or any tickets.

What I care about, is that I would like to see them write at least 10 times more tickets.

Because even tho' last year was a good year, about 40,000 people were killed on the US roads. And there were about 2 million, (2,000,000) traffic accidents.

So maybe if they write more tickets, people will drive more safely, and I won't get killed.

dc

 

Thank you. My point exactly.

[MotorinLA]

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

Not surprised. I guess it's all the specialized training that they get that keeps them from being distracted and a danger to the community. Mere civilians can't possibly be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

 

Those that make (or enforce) the rules tend to excuse themselves from the rules (like Congress & all manner of labor law).

 

My point stands - unequal behaviors breeds cynicism & disregard for the law. Thoreau would have a field day were he alive today.

 

Agreed. The double standard breeds contempt. LEOs are still exempt from wearing a seatbelt on-duty in California. I know several medically retired LEOs that might still have been working, if they had been wearing a seatbelt during their career-ending traffic collisions. Some of the legislation in these areas makes little sense. Is it safer for a police officer to engage in a certain kind of behavior than Joe Citizen? Certainly not when it comes to seatbelts and cell phones.

 

Many California LE agencies now have policies in place that require the use of seatbelts on-duty, regardless of the legal exemption.

 

Just like some departments now have policies in place that require officers to wear their ballistic vests.

 

A lack of common sense is not exclusive to non-uniformed personnel :frown:.

[MotorinLA]

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.

 

 

A woman from New York is driving on a large street in Los Angeles with three lanes of thru travel in both directions. She comes to an intersection and stops in the #1 (left-most) thru lane for a red light. Believing that she is going the wrong way, she tries to pull into the left turn only lane. However, since she is the first car at the limit line, she pulls left and forward into the crosswalk, with her vehicle still partially inside the #1 thru lane. Vehicles behind her are impeeded (VC 22400(a)) and have to swing out around her car. She pulls forward after several cars are impeeded and stops completely blocking the crosswalk (VC 21970(a)). Since she is now stopped past the sensor for the left turn arrow, she does not get a green arrow to turn left. The light for thru traffic turns red and a pedestrian has to walk around her car and out of the crosswalk to get by her. The light for thru traffic turns green once again, but the turn arrow never activates. The woman turns against the red arrow (VC 21453©) and makes a left turn from an improper position, as she did not approach the turn in the left turn lane (VC 22100(b)).

 

I pull her over and explain the reason for the stop. She owns up to every violation and explains that she needs directions. I ask where she is going and she nicely replies that she understands I didn't stop her to give her directions, but rather to give her a ticket.

 

So did she deserve a $1106 ticket, which would have added 4 negligent operator points to her record? Or do you think some discretion should be exercised? Just asking, since you apparently have all the hard and fast answers.

[ghaverkamp]

So did she deserve a $1106 ticket, which would have added 4 negligent operator points to her record? Or do you think some discretion should be exercised? Just asking, since you apparently have all the hard and fast answers.

 

I think the answer is clear. If it's a BMW rider with a BMWST sticker on the case who merely made a mistake, you give him directions and a warning. That's not discretion; that's merely common sense. (The rider probably won't ask for directions, as he fidgets with his Garmin and searches for the volume control for his headset.)

 

Anyone else, they willfully broken the law and deserve all the punishment they have coming. Throw the book (or several volumes of the Vehicle Code) at 'em.

[Paul Mihalka]

LEOs not quite respecting the law, even if no emergency: For my early morning starts (5am/7am) for a pleasure Sunday ride, I often take I70 and I68 to get out to Western MD and WV. I usually ride these freeways with little traffic with the speedo needle on 80, limit 65. Every time I am passed by State Troopers at fairly high speed, I would guess about 90. Most times I see them coming, the dark Crown Vic shape closing fast. I don't think they are driving to a emergency call. I think they are driving home after a boring night. I am not really complaining. If I were in their boots, I probably would do the same thing

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I couldn't care less why they are writing the tickets. I couldn't care less what anybody says about why they are writing more tickets, or any tickets.

What I care about, is that I would like to see them write at least 10 times more tickets.

Because even tho' last year was a good year, about 40,000 people were killed on the US roads. And there were about 2 million, (2,000,000) traffic accidents.

So maybe if they write more tickets, people will drive more safely, and I won't get killed.

dc

 

OK, but can we make those extra tickets out for things like tailgating instead of all just for speeding?

[David13]

Sounds good to me, Joe. I have mentioned that to more than one LEO and had more than one respond that they do stop and ticket for following too close.

People don't realize how dangerous it is.

dc

[ghaverkamp]

Sounds good to me, Joe. I have mentioned that to more than one LEO and had more than one respond that they do stop and ticket for following too close.

 

Having been cited for it twice (I'll cop to the first, but feel the second was BS), I know they'll stop people for it. It's been over 10 years since the second, and as much as I hate to admit it, it did alter my behavior, insofar as I now consciously think about following distances.

[MotorinLA]

... It's been over 10 years since the second, and as much as I hate to admit it, it did alter my behavior, insofar as I now consciously think about following distances.

 

 

Whoo-hoo!!! We've got a convert.

 

 

At least you learned fairly quickly :smile:. I've had more than a couple of repeat customers...

[JOHNNYWISHBONE]

when the CHP is on kawasaki, will they be in a nasty mood, and ticket all the kids who have a 4 cam rt?

[Shaman97]

Agreed. The double standard breeds contempt. LEOs are still exempt from wearing a seatbelt on-duty in California. I know several medically retired LEOs that might still have been working, if they had been wearing a seatbelt during their career-ending traffic collisions.

 

So is it that they are required to not wear them, or do they decide if they don't have to wear them? If it's the former reason, then I agree with your assessment. If it's the latter, I disagree; it's their decision, and the responsibility for the career-ending collision is at least in part, their own.

[MotorinLA]

Agreed. The double standard breeds contempt. LEOs are still exempt from wearing a seatbelt on-duty in California. I know several medically retired LEOs that might still have been working, if they had been wearing a seatbelt during their career-ending traffic collisions.

 

So is it that they are required to not wear them, or do they decide if they don't have to wear them? If it's the former reason, then I agree with your assessment. If it's the latter, I disagree; it's their decision, and the responsibility for the career-ending collision is at least in part, their own.

 

 

Eh?

 

Exempt means not required by law to wear them.

 

The injured officers certainly made that choice on their own, but I don't see where you're going with this. I thought my post was fairly unambiguous. If these officers had been wearing a seatbelt, whether that was their personal choice or not, it might have reduced their injuries to a point where those injuries did not end their carreer.

 

Seatbelts reduce injury and death. Period.

 

The point being that seatbelt laws were put into effect because people were not willing to protect themselves voluntarily. Now LE agencies are putting policies into effect to protect police officers from themselves (and protect the municipalities/etc. from paying higher medical costs for their more seriously injured employees).

 

Is that more clear? :confused:

[Shaman97]

My point being is that given they drive the large number of miles they do during a day/week/year, they exercised poor judgment in not wearing a seatbelt just because 'they didn't have to'.

 

Since you know them, what was their reasonong for not wearing the seatbelt?

 

It seems incongruous to me that a public safety officer did not utilize this rather habitual safety action (putting on a seat belt) while on duty, whether they were required to or not.

 

Since this is a habitual act for me - I put it on without thinking when I get in the car - I would presume the same for most people. Is it also likely the officer used the seatbelt when off-duty?

[MotorinLA]

My point being is that given they drive the large number of miles they do during a day/week/year, they exercised poor judgment in not wearing a seatbelt just because 'they didn't have to'.

 

Since you know them, what was their reasonong for not wearing the seatbelt?

 

It seems incongruous to me that a public safety officer did not utilize this rather habitual safety action (putting on a seat belt) while on duty, whether they were required to or not.

 

Since this is a habitual act for me - I put it on without thinking when I get in the car - I would presume the same for most people. Is it also likely the officer used the seatbelt when off-duty?

 

Okay. Now I understand.

 

The theory as explained to me, when I first started as a police officer, was that in case of an emergency a seatbelt would slow down, or hinder, any action you may have to take to address an immediate threat from outside the vehicle. Other officers also justified not wearing a seatbelt by stating that there was a danger of getting hung up while attempting to exit their vehicle quickly. I originally bought into these theories and began not wearing a seatbelt while driving on-duty.

 

I always wear my seatbelt off-duty, putting it on automatically as I get into the car. After a few months as a police officer I found that I would still automatically wear my seatbelt off-duty, but I no longer thought about putting it on while on-duty. After seeing a few on-duty crashes, I began wearing my seatbelt religously on-duty as well. It took about 3-4 weeks to make it an automatic action. Initially, I had to consciously think about it, to remember to wear it on-duty.

 

The brain is funny like that, different settings can have an impact on "habitual" behaviors.

[KDeline]

Just asking, since you apparently have all the hard and fast answers.

 

 

Good to see you realize that.

 

Just because she is from NY dosn't mean she gets a pass. Believing she is going the wrong way she should have went straight when she stopped in the left thru lane and doubled back. Same kind of streets and intersections in NY.

 

If you need more answers feel free to post.

[upflying]

I wear a seat belt both on and off duty. I deal with the officer safety, entanglement, quick exit from a patrol vehicle concerns by removing the seat belt just prior to arriving at a call and just prior to rolling to a stop on a traffic violator.

I never wore a seat belt until it became law. The agency I work for has a policy requiring officers to war belts while driving. Admittedly some do not. That's a problem for a supervisor.

While on the subject of increased enforcement, Ca has a month long crackdown on cell phone violators. Locally that's a $156 fine. I handed out 7 stubs for this offense yesterday.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_17765926?source=rss&nclick_check=1

[MotorinLA]

Just asking, since you apparently have all the hard and fast answers.

 

 

Good to see you realize that.

 

Just because she is from NY dosn't mean she gets a pass. Believing she is going the wrong way she should have went straight when she stopped in the left thru lane and doubled back. Same kind of streets and intersections in NY.

 

If you need more answers feel free to post.

 

Hey, thanks, I appreciate the help .

 

 

 

While I agree with your last post, which is why I give extremely few warnings (there is usually another, albeit somewhat longer way or, one that requires a little more patience, to accomplish the same thing as committing the violation), I don't generally cite violators for multiple moving violations on the same ticket. There are exceptions, but as a general rule I limit myself to one.

 

If you don't agree with this kind of "discretion", I'd like to know why you think it is inappropriate.

 

BTW, most Police Academies in the Southern California area that I am familiar with, teaches the distinction between letter of the law and spirit of the law, AKA "discretion". Sorry, I'm sure you're very disappointed to hear this... :smirk:

[KDeline]

If you don't agree with this kind of "discretion", I'd like to know why you think it is inappropriate.

 

 

 

I don't want to be the first person you pull over when you just found out your wife has been having an affair with your captain and his son. Or your partner just got shot by a guy that is riding a BMW and looks a lot like me. Just might taint your discretion a bit.

[MarkyP]

(I'm beating my head against the wall for even wading into this)

 

In Illinois we are taught the same thing. Discretion is a large portion of what defines the job of a police officer. We are not robots sent to fix a situation without taking human emotions and situations into account.

 

Very few things in life, especially the world in which we commonly operate, are black and white - just varying shades of grey.

 

Does this mean that the same violation may be dealt with differently by two different officers? Absolutely.

 

This discussion has been, and will continue to be, academic in that the human factor will always exist. It exists in every field - police work, the medical field, insurance, retail - where human interaction is a necessary part of the job. Any belief that the human factor (and discretion) will not come into play is not grounded in reality.

 

 

[MotorinLA]

If you don't agree with this kind of "discretion", I'd like to know why you think it is inappropriate.

 

 

 

I don't want to be the first person you pull over when you just found out your wife has been having an affair with your captain and his son. Or your partner just got shot by a guy that is riding a BMW and looks a lot like me. Just might taint your discretion a bit.

 

That has nothing to do with "discretion", rather it would be an issue of not separating your personal life from your professional life.

 

Like I ask unhappy motorist when they offer idiot comments like, "I hope this makes you happy!", I reply, "Do you think that I personally could care less about whether or not you didn't stop for the stop sign (or whatever the violation may be)?"

 

I think the perception of many people (at least based on my personal observation) is that officers give tickets, because it somehow makes them personally feel better, or that it is some kind of a power trip. I'm sure there are officers out there that do feel like that, but I think they are a lot fewer and farther between that most people realize. Most police officers do their job because they feel that they are helping maintain order and improve the quality of life of the citizens they work to protect.

 

Discretion in this respect refers to basing your actions on what each incident calls for and not just acting the same regardless of what you're faced with in an individual incident.

 

Now, as stated earlier I generally give nearly everyone a ticket, regardless of their attitude. This is simply because that is essentially what I have been tasked to do as a motor officer. As a patrol officer I used to issue a lot more warnings. If I stopped drivers that assumed personal responsibility for their actions and seemed sincere in their claim that they would try not to commit the violation again in the future, I'd often let them go with a warning. On the other hand, drivers that tried to justify their violations, minimize their violations or simply tried to take no personal responsibilty for their actions, would drive away with a ticket. This had little to do with my personal attitude for the day and more to do with the attitude of the drivers. You may think this is BS, but I believe it to be fairly accurate for myself and many other officers that I work with on a daily basis. If you realize how much crap the average metropolitan police officer puts up with every day, I think you'd be more inclined to see my point of view. Every day has some component of being a "bad day", so if all officers enforced the law based mostly on their personal attitude, there'd be very few warnings indeed and a lot more lectures to go with those tickets.

 

So, please cite some personal interaction you've had that make you think discretion is a bad thing, rather than condemning "discretion" in general.

[MotorinLA]

(I'm beating my head against the wall for even wading into this)

 

In Illinois we are taught the same thing. Discretion is a large portion of what defines the job of a police officer. We are not robots sent to fix a situation without taking human emotions and situations into account.

 

Very few things in life, especially the world in which we commonly operate, are black and white - just varying shades of grey.

 

Does this mean that the same violation may be dealt with differently by two different officers? Absolutely.

 

This discussion has been, and will continue to be, academic in that the human factor will always exist. It exists in every field - police work, the medical field, insurance, retail - where human interaction is a necessary part of the job. Any belief that the human factor (and discretion) will not come into play is not grounded in reality.

 

 

Yeah, what he said...

[KDeline]

O.K. You asked for it. Without long storys here are a few.

 

Number 1. I and another car was pulled over at the same time. Patrolman talks to car driver a few minutes, car leaves. Talks to me I get ticket because car driver was from Germany and use to Autobann speeds I was from here and knew better.

 

Number 2. On the interstate minding my own bussiness, Hayabusa speeds around me just as we pass a cop with radar on an overpass. Hayabusa keeps going I get pulled over. Cop states we are screwing around. Tell him I don't even know the jerk then I ask why he did not chase him down, says did not want to chance a high speed chase so I get the ticket because I stop.

 

Number 3. On a very hot day in a small tourist town wife and I are in traffic on the bikes at walking speed. Cop flags me down. Get ticket for my visor being open. At walking speed, with a wind shield. As we sit there for more then twenty minutes traffic opens up and a couple of Harleys open there throttles, make a lot of moise and high speed away from there. I ask why they never pull them over as I see this in this town all the time, they say What do you want us to do jump in front of them? So you did it to me because I was going slow?

 

 

Number 4. I was leaving a girlfriends house and on my way out of town I saw a cop pull out way behind me from a bussiness park. Came to a curve that I had driven hundreds of times, went through it at the speed limit as I knew he was back there. He pulls me over and just starts tearing me a new one because of how dangerous this curve is and he has shoveled bike parts off in the past. I said I was doing the speed limit as I knew he was behind me and were he came from. Did not matter, his opinion this was a dangerous curve. Got ticket for driving wreckless. Clear day, sun shining, road clean.

 

 

And an all time favorite, not so much disretion as attitude, ran into an old school acquaintance a few years after high school. He became a cop. He looked me right in the eye and said, to serve and protect.....right! I can screw your life up for a long time with a single statement. Nice.

 

 

Since you guys are beating you heads this is the last I will post of this. It has been hashed out in another thread.

[Shaman97]

Get ticket for my visor being open.

 

What? Do you mean the faceshield on your helmet? I ride like this as a matter of course. Didn't know it's a no-no.

[MotorinLA]

O.K. You asked for it. Without long storys here are a few.

 

Number 1. I and another car was pulled over at the same time. Patrolman talks to car driver a few minutes, car leaves. Talks to me I get ticket because car driver was from Germany and use to Autobann speeds I was from here and knew better.

 

Number 2. On the interstate minding my own bussiness, Hayabusa speeds around me just as we pass a cop with radar on an overpass. Hayabusa keeps going I get pulled over. Cop states we are screwing around. Tell him I don't even know the jerk then I ask why he did not chase him down, says did not want to chance a high speed chase so I get the ticket because I stop.

 

Number 3. On a very hot day in a small tourist town wife and I are in traffic on the bikes at walking speed. Cop flags me down. Get ticket for my visor being open. At walking speed, with a wind shield. As we sit there for more then twenty minutes traffic opens up and a couple of Harleys open there throttles, make a lot of moise and high speed away from there. I ask why they never pull them over as I see this in this town all the time, they say What do you want us to do jump in front of them? So you did it to me because I was going slow?

 

 

Number 4. I was leaving a girlfriends house and on my way out of town I saw a cop pull out way behind me from a bussiness park. Came to a curve that I had driven hundreds of times, went through it at the speed limit as I knew he was back there. He pulls me over and just starts tearing me a new one because of how dangerous this curve is and he has shoveled bike parts off in the past. I said I was doing the speed limit as I knew he was behind me and were he came from. Did not matter, his opinion this was a dangerous curve. Got ticket for driving wreckless. Clear day, sun shining, road clean.

 

 

And an all time favorite, not so much disretion as attitude, ran into an old school acquaintance a few years after high school. He became a cop. He looked me right in the eye and said, to serve and protect.....right! I can screw your life up for a long time with a single statement. Nice.

 

 

Since you guys are beating you heads this is the last I will post of this. It has been hashed out in another thread.

 

Clearly this issue carries some emotional attachments for you and while I can see how you felt unfairly treated in your four scenarios, I still fail to understand your anger towards discretion. In example #1 it seems you're angry because the other guy didn't get a ticket and you did. While I understand the unfairness of this situation, there are many variables that could have influenced the officer's decision at the time. Personally I think it was poor decision making on the officer's part to cite one driver, but not the other one on a two car stop. At least the officer should have made the other guy wait and let you leave before he let him go. Still unfair in your eyes, I'm sure, but at least that way the officer wouldn't be "rubbing it in your face".

 

Example #2 may seem ridiculous to you, but makes sense from a "a bird in hand..." standpoint. If there is only one police officer, you can't chase two separate bikes. The one that stops gets hammered. BTW, no police car, or police bike for that matter, could likely keep up with, or catch up to, a guy on a Hayabusa.

 

Example #3 seems silly to me too, but maybe there was a reason for his actions that you're unaware of, or possibly the officer was just a jack@$$. This seems more of an example of "lack of discretion" than an example of "use of discretion".

 

Example #4 also seems to have more to do with a lack of discretion than the use of discretion. Perhaps this officer has never ridden a motorcycle and didn't understand that you were being safe. Or perhaps your opinion of safe did not meet the same criteria as his definition of safe.

 

While I certainly understand your frustration with your police contacts, I ask you to sincerely ask yourself if your own attitude during these contacts contributed to the outcome. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I'm simply pointing out that your end of the contact can also lead to very different outcomes in a given scenario. I've had drivers in the past talk themselves into a ticket, when my original intent was to give them a warning.

 

Hopefully any future contacts you have with law enforcement will have a more positive outcome for you.

[upflying]

MotorinLA says,

"While I certainly understand your frustration with your police contacts, I ask you to sincerely ask yourself if your own attitude during these contacts contributed to the outcome. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I'm simply pointing out that your end of the contact can also lead to very different outcomes in a given scenario. I've had drivers in the past talk themselves into a ticket, when my original intent was to give them a warning".

 

This sums it up quite nicely. What's that Charlie Sheen rant again? "Duh, winning"

 

[Dave McReynolds]

An article in the paper today caught my eye. Roseville, a community near where I live, has decided to back way off on issuing traffic tickets, and increase warnings instead. So far, accidents have declined along with the tickets, although that could be due to other factors, of course.

 

When I was reading the article, it occurred to me that issuing a warning might be a more effective way to deal with people who have personalities like mine. I've been skeptical of the motivations of those in power over me for a long time, since Vietnam at least, if not before. I've never gotten a ticket that I thought had anything to do with operating my vehicle in an unsafe manner. They were all issued for violations I knowingly committed: speeding, illegal turns, etc., and I never felt like fighting any of them. I just felt like I got caught, and if I got too many of them, my life would become unnecessarily difficult, so I had better be more careful about getting caught again, as opposed to being a more careful driver. OTOH, I don't think I would be issued a warning unless the LEO believed I was operating the vehicle unsafely; I don't know what other motivation he could have. I would have to think about that, and my thoughts would be on whether I should change something I'm doing that is unsafe, rather than why I got caught.

 

Maybe people who aren't as cynical as I am about those in power, or people who may be as cynical as I am but are also sociopathic and are motivated only by the threat of losing their driver's license and money, might be motivated better by tickets than by warnings, so I suppose there will be a continuing need for both. But I'm glad Roseville is willing to try something different.