Stop Complaining About Minor Traffic Violations!!!
- Thread starter FordSVTFan
- Start date
- Status
I think people complain about minor traffic violations because of their frequency of enforcement. It seems awfully disproportionate in comparison to what we presume officers COULD be doing instead of enforcing laws that are admittedly LESSER than others.
Going by the same logic, it seems as though officers in California should have an easy time catching people smoking cigarettes where they shouldn't be. Right?
If officers don't "like" enforcing these laws any more than the public likes getting cited for these "lesser" laws, but officers enforce them with a startling regularity, then there must be a motivation for the officers to enforce these laws.
Is there a coincidence that these minor violations and the frequency that they are enforced? You bet. I am not allowed to say it though...though everyone knows what I am hinting at.
On a side note, I believe that an officer CAN choose which laws to enforce. Every single day officers let people go for violations all the time. They have the discretion. No one will change my mind of that. What it comes down to is who is motivating the officer and why.
Going by the same logic, it seems as though officers in California should have an easy time catching people smoking cigarettes where they shouldn't be. Right?
If officers don't "like" enforcing these laws any more than the public likes getting cited for these "lesser" laws, but officers enforce them with a startling regularity, then there must be a motivation for the officers to enforce these laws.
Is there a coincidence that these minor violations and the frequency that they are enforced? You bet. I am not allowed to say it though...though everyone knows what I am hinting at.
On a side note, I believe that an officer CAN choose which laws to enforce. Every single day officers let people go for violations all the time. They have the discretion. No one will change my mind of that. What it comes down to is who is motivating the officer and why.
Timothy McVeigh was arrested during a routine traffic stop and he killed 168 people and injured over 500. To me, thats worth getting "harassed" when I'm caught breaking the law.
svt32v99 said:
And what scale are you using to judge the proportion? Everyone has laws they dont like and consider minor. The car guys dont like traffic laws and consider them minor. The guys who smoke weed, dont like the possession laws and consider them minor. The taggers, who vandalize and paint graffiti on buildings and private property dont like the vandalism laws and consider them minor. It is all in your perspective. Like I said before, there isnt an officer I know that wouldnt prefer to stop a rape, murder, burglary, etc over a traffic stop. But looking for those crimes while ignoring the so called "minor" ones isnt the answer.
svt32v99 said:
I dont gather your reasoning.
svt32v99 said:
Yes the motivation is called doing your job. L.E.O.s arent hired to enforce only the laws they agree with and support wholeheartedly, they enforce all the laws regardless of personal belief.
svt32v99 said:
I dont know what you are hinting at! I can assume you are making reference to the so called "ticket quota". If that is the case, you are barking up the wrong tree. Because if you follow the threads most people bitch about being stopped for minor violations and then let go. If there was such a quota, then why would an officer let anyone who is in violation go? They wouldnt. Because if they did, they wouldnt get a new toaster.
svt32v99 said:
Officers like anyone else can make their own choices, but then again they will be the ones paying for those choices. We have checks and balances in place. There are "tests" done all the time of officers by I.A. to make sure they are doing what they are hired and sworn to do. There is an old saying in L.E. "do whatever your career can handle".
Discretion for certain violations is granted by each individual agency. As quickly as it is granted it can be taken away. For instance, if there is a rise in accidents being caused by not using a blinker, the powers that be will start a strict enforcement detail for turn signal use, and discretion for that violation is not within the officers purview.
As long as no one will change your mind of anything, then there is no reason to have a cogent and constructive conversation with you. Have a nice day. No reply this is necessary as it will lead nowhere, according to you.
FordSVTFan said:
Well, I disagree with you final conclusion. That came from nowhere.
But your second to last paragraph speaks volumes and to what I believe is the problem. There are too many people who are over the police agencies dictating what those agencies should or should not do. Specifically, ticket revenue (not quotas) and junk science/statistics.
Ticket revenue is the ONLY reason why intersection cameras exist. They are not there to prevent anything. They have been accused to have caused more accidents than they have prevented. Just another arm of the local IRS.
Junk science is used to manipulate police departments to enforce different laws with varying degrees of emphasis.
I am not blaming the LEO for ANY of this. It is clear to me that LEOs are victims of their employers who more often than not no absolutely ZERO about fighting crime or protecting people; legislators or other elected fools.
LEOs are pawns in this game and often I feel they have to legitimize their jobs because the truth is so ****ing hard to swallow: They are NOT in control of protecting citizens or fighting crime, rather their jobs are dictated to them by someone who doesn't have a clue.
I am on your side LEOs. I promise. But where you have discretion, I feel you should use it wisely. Not all do. Is that not fair to say? Not all doctors are good at being a doctor either. I am not always good at being a banker. We are all human and LEOs are humans in uniform charged with the duty of protecting and serving. But they are still humans.
The only way to stop unfair ticketing for minor traffic violations is to legislate it OR have LEOs develop their own system of being fair. Why not write an electronic note recording a first time traffic violation within a category of similar violations (ie. Speeding) and broadcast it across the entire PD database? The second time it happens, THEN you write the ticket. Two strikes you are out.
If you implement that type of system, then you will still weed out the criminals with outstanding records AND stop the habbitual violator. NOT the first timer.
BTW, there is no moral equivalence to doing drugs versus not using your blinker. They are entirely different in severity, regardless of what the law says. YOU, the LEO has discretion to see the difference and enforce accordingly.
You should have taken Adam's advice and not responded. Your post clearly indicates you do not understand the issues at all. ie, "Ticket revenue is the ONLY reason why intersection cameras exist. They are not there to prevent anything. They have been accused to have caused more accidents than they have prevented. Just another arm of the local IRS"
Since you do not understand the issues, there is no reason to expand this any further.
BTW - There is no need to respond to my post either....................but I'm sure you will. :shrug:
Since you do not understand the issues, there is no reason to expand this any further.
BTW - There is no need to respond to my post either....................but I'm sure you will. :shrug:
*removed by moderator*
Last edited by a moderator:
svt32v99 said:
This is a very big sore spot with me. I wish Vegas had these at EVERY intersection. Stop whe the light is turing red and you are fine. Run the light, you are busted. Plain and simple.
JUST BECASUE A DRIVER STOPPED FOR A RED LIGHT, AND SOME AZZHOLE REARENDS THEM. DOES NOT MAKE IT THE CAMERAS FAULT. IT'S THE AZZHOLE WHO DID NOT STOPS FAULT.
It is obvious to me that you don't live in an area that has A-holes running redlights and 4 way stops at almost every intersection. And these A-holes run the lights at an alarming rate of speed. When you are stoped and cars go by you so fast that your car moves a bit, they are moving. If you have to wait a few seconds before you go when the light turns green, for fear of your saftey, there is a problem.
Red light running has cost me more money on my insurance becasue of the major crashes in the area I live in. And most of them are at intersections. And I am sure most are from A-holes running red lights. I figured when I bought my new house my car insurance would go down becasue of the gated community and side of town I live in. Nope traffic crashes took care of that.
VPF
vegaspackerfan said:
I agree with you (I know, very surprising)! The only place worse for running red lights is Phoenix. Tampa is probably a close second to Las Vegas for it.
I find if I am first in line at a red light when it turns green I have to count to three and look both ways. If you take off from a red light here as soon as it turns green you are likely to get hit.
The point of this thread is two fold. First, our elected officials have placed in effect a set of laws that as a society we agree to live with. Yes some are "minor" when compared to others. And it is for that reason that the punishment (whether fine or jail time) is commensurate with the action. But too many people feel since the so-called "minor" infractions have a lesser punishment they should be able to not follow those laws. But they carry an equal weight in the eyes of the legislature as to necessity.
The second point of this thread is perspective. Everyone has laws they feel are not necessary and wholey infringe on their enjoyment of their lives. The car guys dont like traffic laws because they are often in violation of those laws. The people that smoke marijuana dont like the simple possession laws because they are often in violation of those laws and just like the car guys feel their actions only impact themselves. The "taggers" who vandalize buildings and private property with their artistic impressions in paint, feel those laws are not needed.
But when you look at any of these laws from the perspective of a person not involved in that "scene", the laws seem pretty straight forward and understandable. Like I said, it is very much based on your own perspective.
svt32v99 said:
I can't believe you would suggest that. Here in Sacramento, the cameras are placed in the intersections where the most accidents have occurred. Do you know how much it costs to set up and maintain an intersection with this technology? It has nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with saving lives and preventing accidents. The whole point is to get people NOT to run the light, so the less money that is collected the happier the city officials will be.
The life saved could be my grandmother who probably wouldn't make it an accident. If it prevents a driver in a hurry from flooring it through a red condition but sacrifices an extra $400 in revenue to the city, I think everyone will agree (including the IRS) that it has served its purpose.
This was not meant to offend you. It's simply a disagreement.
Amen FordSVTFan
Sugestion:
Maybe a list on WHAT to do so we don't get pulled over EVER........
Huge thanks to all that serve !!
Sugestion:
Maybe a list on WHAT to do so we don't get pulled over EVER........
Huge thanks to all that serve !!
Juiced-03 said:
I see you are in California. You have our laws wrong.
You have to be "free and clear" of the intersection when the light turns red or you ran it. The " my front tires were over the limit line when it turned yellow " myth is ages old and has never been correct.
The INSTANT the light turns red the camera starts snapping, if you are in the intersection you're busted.
Maybe Mswain will chime in ahd show you you're incorrect.
eci said:
Exactly as it should be, although the photos are only used to prosecute those cars entering the intersection or in the middle. Those exiting the intersection are not prosecuted.
Also, I would love to see the quote you speak of and who was the speaker who stated the timing was altered to generate additionhal citations. That minimum timing is regulated by DOT, with no exceptions unless a municipality decides to lengthen the time.
Most cities have found red light cameras to be more of a problem than an aid to traffic enforcement, however the fact remains red light runners cause accidents and need to be stopped.
The cameras provide a cheap alternative to assigning officers to stand watch and they pay for themselves through a portion of the revenue they generate.
If people have a problem with them the solution is quite simple - stop running red lights!!
Their usage is clearly spelled out in the vehicle code, I would suggest reading the material before replying since I have quite a bit of experience with them.
You don't seem to have a lot of experience with the pricing however. Lockheed Martin's system costs a FORTUNE and then you have to yield 60% of ticket revenue back to them.
The city of temecula, ca, recently found it cheaper to hire two additional full time officers, which they did and bannjed red light cameras.
The city of temecula, ca, recently found it cheaper to hire two additional full time officers, which they did and bannjed red light cameras.
Juiced-03 said:
Whatever. I don't red lights. I'm 31 and have never even pulled over, no accidents, nothing EVER.
People get ticketed who entered the intersection on GREEN.
Or how about when someone in front of you is going along at a good speed, so you follow them into the intersection, but then there is a dip at the end, and their riced out civic SLOWS TO 1MPH so he doesn't bump his ground effects. BOOM TICKET.
"wait till it's clear"
yeah. we should all slam on our brakes and stop at the limit line till the intersection is TOTALLY CLEAR, then floor it.
Whatever.
I would still be interested in knowing the source of the quote you made earlier, as well as some evidence of citations being issued (and paid) by drivers on green lights. The cameras are normally triggered by light changes so it's kind of hard for them to take photos of cars passing through green lights.
I have worked on two camera projects as the LE laison, I've also testified in a hearing before DOT in support of the systems and have amassed tons of data that shows the systems do work - not in all cases, but in the majority of them. For every article or story of a system that fails, you can find hundreds showing they are working as designed.
There are many reasons why the systems fail, however the evidence clearly shows they increase public awareness and decrease accidents at intersections where they are installed.
Yes, they make money for the manufacturer. Yes, they do add to the City's general fund, although there are limits where they can spend the money. That's what makes this country great. Find a solution to someone's problem and sell it to them. As said from the beginning and repeated often - they will go out of business the moment the motoring public stops running red lights.
I have worked on two camera projects as the LE laison, I've also testified in a hearing before DOT in support of the systems and have amassed tons of data that shows the systems do work - not in all cases, but in the majority of them. For every article or story of a system that fails, you can find hundreds showing they are working as designed.
There are many reasons why the systems fail, however the evidence clearly shows they increase public awareness and decrease accidents at intersections where they are installed.
Yes, they make money for the manufacturer. Yes, they do add to the City's general fund, although there are limits where they can spend the money. That's what makes this country great. Find a solution to someone's problem and sell it to them. As said from the beginning and repeated often - they will go out of business the moment the motoring public stops running red lights.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
