Airport Police vs Romulus Police

[Dnyce]

u speed and get caught-ticket time

only thing that i would be pissed about were if its a 45 zone, and it drops to 25 without a decent warning, and thats how they were giving the tickets, or they were giving tickets for 2--3mph over. other than that, fuck it, man up and....postpone it 2x, then try to fight it in court and hope the cop dont show up lol-then if all else fails, pay it.

[Particle Man]

I think we almost all agree that if you break the law and get caught, you accept the consequences. It's more the fact that rather than target a specific area because of a high accident rate with the specific purpose of raising awareness and increasing the safety factor, they target it specifically for revenue generation. THAT I can't agree with.

[LeeNetworX]

This would never happen in Vulcan.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Ok... and the point?

You break the law and get caught, you pay the fucking ticket and be a man. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this increased enforcement of laws.

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area

[Devil's advocate]

But, if people are chronically breaking the law in one area, wouldn't it make sense to position officers to ensure the law is followed THEN move on to another area? I love the idea of the warnings - as it keeps people following the law with the announced threat of penalty. It didn't change the law - just made it more obvious.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area

Like I said, I know the reason they are doing it... However, how did Giuliani clean up NYC? He started giving tickets to jaywalkers... If you cannot manage the small things, how can you expect to manage the bigger things?

So... It stands to reason that if the increased ticketing in one area causes a behavior shift of the drivers in that area, then that would free up resources to allocate to another area.

My point is... just because there is a possibility of more severe crimes in the area, an officer should ignore someone breaking the law?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by azoomm

[Devil's advocate]

But, if people are chronically breaking the law in one area, wouldn't it make sense to position officers to ensure the law is followed THEN move on to another area? I love the idea of the warnings - as it keeps people following the law with the announced threat of penalty. It didn't change the law - just made it more obvious.

People are chronically breaking that particular law everywhere. Should they then limit their enforcement to one area, giving drivers the feeling that they can continue to break the same law, with impunity, elsewhere?

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by azoomm

[Devil's advocate]

But, if people are chronically breaking the law in one area, wouldn't it make sense to position officers to ensure the law is followed THEN move on to another area? I love the idea of the warnings - as it keeps people following the law with the announced threat of penalty. It didn't change the law - just made it more obvious.

Warnings don't work nearly as well as a big fatty ticket.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

People are chronically breaking that particular law everywhere. Should they then limit their enforcement to one area, giving drivers the feeling that they can continue to break the same law, with impunity, elsewhere?

So the only solution is to either increase the number of patrols by 1000% so you can catch everyone, everywhere.... or completely do away with patrols because when you catch someone, there are 100 other motherfuckers some place else breaking the law?

My logic says that once a place is considered a speed trap, people will slow down in general... then, they can move on to another area.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

So the only solution is to either increase the number of patrols by 1000% so you can catch everyone, everywhere.... or completely do away with patrols because when you catch someone, there are 100 other motherfuckers some place else breaking the law?

My logic says that once a place is considered a speed trap, people will slow down in general... then, they can move on to another area.

No, the solution is to get rid of stealth cars and targeted sweeps like speed traps, and make police visible to the public as they once were. You can't catch everyone but if you let them know that they're only likely to be caught breaking the law in a few select locations, they'll feel free to break it everywhere else.

The randomness of enforcement tends to reduce the probability that someone will break the law. The visible presence of officers has an obvious and immediate effect on how people drive. Speed has been shown to have less real effect on traffic collisions than do other bad driving practises, like inattentiveness. As I frequently say up here: Speed doesn't cause collisions, it merely magnifies the results of stupidity.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

No, the solution is to get rid of stealth cars and targeted sweeps like speed traps, and make police visible to the public as they once were. You can't catch everyone but if you let them know that they're only likely to be caught breaking the law in a few select locations, they'll feel free to break it everywhere else.

The randomness of enforcement tends to reduce the probability that someone will break the law. The visible presence of officers has an obvious and immediate effect on how people drive. Speed has been shown to have less real effect on traffic collisions than do other bad driving practises, like inattentiveness. As I frequently say up here: Speed doesn't cause collisions, it merely magnifies the results of stupidity.

So, you are for bleach in the pool?

I understand your point, and agree. Though, with so many laws on the books... can we go back to a more simple time when common sense prevailed? Like, when texting in your car wasn't an idea (for example).