What was the deal with April 1st?

[carrrnuttt]

On my particular route, where I drive every weekday to work, I hardly ever see an officer (not saying they weren't hiding somewhere). I'd maybe see one every 2-3 weeks, and rarely will I see more than 2 different officers patrolling the route, even including cars responding to a call together.

Even though it's a busy road, it seems that accidents are fairly uncommon. It's a series of wide lanes, with at least 3 lanes for most of the route.

Well, last Wednesday, April 1st, I saw SEVEN separate motorcycle officers (read: traffic officers) on this particular route. They were from at least 3 different jurisdictions. And these were just the ones I saw. They mostly already had someone pulled over, or they were in the act of pulling someone over.

I have driven this exact route for going on 6 years now, and this is the first time I have ever seen anything of this kind. There was nothing in the news about some kind of interdepartmental traffic task force, or anything of the kind. Of course, the local economy hasn't been as bad as it currently is, all those other years.

So back to April 1st. Other than the fact that April 1st is well-known for being April Fool's day, the only other thing I find significant about it is that it is the end of the fiscal quarter, and the start of a new one.

Thoughts? Revenue-generation for the next fiscal quarter?

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Cracking down on speeders in that area. Most likely the result of complaints by the community or to reduce the amount of accidents, etc. in the area.

Btw, whenever one brings up "revenue generation" argument, you lose alot of credibility with LEO's. Making such statements is nothing more than an attempt to devalue the important job we do.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Cracking down on speeders in that area. Most likely the result of complaints by the community or to reduce the amount of accidents, etc. in the area.

Btw, whenever one brings up "revenue generation" argument, you lose alot of credibility with LEO's. Making such statements is nothing more than an attempt to devalue the important job we do.

+1. Also, citations are being written to those breaking the law whether it raises revenue or not. If someone doesnt want to contribute, it is simple, dont speed.

 

[mswaim]

"Thoughts? Revenue-generation for the next fiscal quarter?"


Wow, kind of sad you chose the low-road without doing any homework. :read:

There are many reasons why law enforcement agencies choose to work together in joint task force situations, unfortunately little discussion takes place over how they split the fines........:shrug:

 

[ZChaos0026]

plus, most places dont get the entire ticket fine amount. my agency gets like less than one half of one percent of the fine amount. we surely arent paying salaries with 50 cents on a seat belt ticket......

 

[Iceman II]

Roger that, everytime I hear that "revenue" crap it ticks me off. The mentality of some these people.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Roger that, everytime I hear that "revenue" crap it ticks me off. The mentality of some these people.

Why should they take responsibility for their actions when they can blame it on someone else and come up with an excuse that sounds "good" to others who dont know the facts. :shrug:

 

[Iceman II]

Exactly! Lets go ahead and blame the police for doing their jobs.

 

[carrrnuttt]

Roger that, everytime I hear that "revenue" crap it ticks me off. The mentality of some these people.

This is why I asked. You have to understand, I'm coming from an area where the [ex] Governor promised the state 90 million dollars in REVENUE IN ITS FIRST YEAR from the massive speeding camera program it bought into. Not to mention that a lot of cities in the metro area are considering buying into the same program as well.

Also, I was merely commenting on the fact that this happened to have occurred on a fiscal quarter cutoff. It might be just coincidence, but if it happens again on July 1st, is it ok for me to think that way again? Don't worry, I'll report back in 3 months.

Also, you guys act as if traffic tickets have never been used as a revenue-generating device by any town or municipality before. You guys seem to have a hard time conceiving of yourselves and your departments as separate entities from other departments and other officers. Just because you or your department is "honest" and "infallible", doesn't mean that all other departments will be. Don't forget, there's always someone, or a group of someones deciding this for an officer. Just because they were sent out to do something like this, doesn't mean the officer is to blame. Maybe you can back off your group think, and quit being so defensive about the implication.

What's funny is, I wasn't even complaining about it. What's ironic is, with all of the "drunk officer" stories coming up lately, an officer is going to lecture me about the civilians' side's "personal responsibility". When officers as a group start discarding its chaff from their very first appearances, like most well-meaning private industries do, instead of hiding them behind the Blue Wall, then we'll talk about "personal responsibility".

 

[oldmodman]

+1. Also, citations are being written to those breaking the law whether it raises revenue or not. If someone doesnt want to contribute, it is simple, dont speed.

"Thoughts? Revenue-generation for the next fiscal quarter?"

Roger that, everytime I hear that "revenue" crap it ticks me off. The mentality of some these people.

Wow, kind of sad you chose the low-road without doing any homework. :read:

There are many reasons why law enforcement agencies choose to work together in joint task force situations, unfortunately little discussion takes place over how they split the fines........:shrug:

Why not alter the penalty phase of all traffic citations?

No more financial penalties, no more insurance rates going up, no more money going to any agency or city at all.

All penalties will be labor based.

Set up a sliding scale based on ability to perform work. Younger stronger healthier people perform the most difficult labor, older or handicapped people perform an equally useful job, perhaps for a longer period of time.

It could be anything from a days work washing the sidewalk in front of city hall, or painting a homeless shelter, to street construction. And the more serious the infraction, the longer the labor time. Actual inconvenience may be a much greater penalty for most drivers. Since many people would much rather whip out the credit card than have to devote a few days of their lives to a traffic penalty, maybe drivers would feel that spending a few minutes more to reach their destination isn't so bad, after all.

Actually, this might end up having the desired result of people obeying the law on a more "frequent" basis.

And isn't that what the laws are there for? To be obeyed?

 

[Iceman II]

I think the fines are too high to begin with, but Leo's have nothing to do with. Somtimes I wonder when fines are going to top out.
Every now and then I am hearing is "Officer, I can't afford the ticket." Now, I am made out to be the bad guy and they leave all pissed off.
Now matter how a person looks at it and even if the fines were lower there will be always something to blame on the leos.
Just take responsibility for your actions and teach your kiddo's the same.

 

[FordSVTFan]

This is why I asked. You have to understand, I'm coming from an area where the [ex] Governor promised the state 90 million dollars in REVENUE IN ITS FIRST YEAR from the massive speeding camera program it bought into. Not to mention that a lot of cities in the metro area are considering buying into the same program as well.

Indeed. Those decision were made by politicians not Law Enforcement.

Also, I was merely commenting on the fact that this happened to have occurred on a fiscal quarter cutoff. It might be just coincidence, but if it happens again on July 1st, is it ok for me to think that way again? Don't worry, I'll report back in 3 months.

:shrug:

Also, you guys act as if traffic tickets have never been used as a revenue-generating device by any town or municipality before. You guys seem to have a hard time conceiving of yourselves and your departments as separate entities from other departments and other officers. Just because you or your department is "honest" and "infallible", doesn't mean that all other departments will be.

And you and most of those that complain about revenue generation need to understand those decisions do NOT come from Law Enforcement. L.E.O.s job is to enforce the laws as written, regardless of the penalty or if revenue is generated.

Don't forget, there's always someone, or a group of someones deciding this for an officer. Just because they were sent out to do something like this, doesn't mean the officer is to blame. Maybe you can back off your group think, and quit being so defensive about the implication.

Once you stop inferring that L.E. has anything to do with these decisions.

What's funny is, I wasn't even complaining about it. What's ironic is, with all of the "drunk officer" stories coming up lately, an officer is going to lecture me about the civilians' side's "personal responsibility". When officers as a group start discarding its chaff from their very first appearances, like most well-meaning private industries do, instead of hiding them behind the Blue Wall, then we'll talk about "personal responsibility".

There is plenty of L.E. oversight, just because the public isnt privy to their decisions doesnt mean that it doesnt occur. If you want to talk about hiding responsibility lets talk about corporate officers hiding embezzlement or M&M conferences where physicians speak of their malpractice hidden from everyone.

Why not alter the penalty phase of all traffic citations? No more financial penalties, no more insurance rates going up, no more money going to any agency or city at all.

That was the way it was in the beginning, all traffic offenses were criminal. It was decided through legislation and court cases that traffic offenses should be civil in nature and therefore the penalty would be a fine rather than jail time.

All penalties will be labor based.

And that will create a problem with people who live outside the area, those who are physically unable, as well as the cost of overseeing the labor.

Set up a sliding scale based on ability to perform work. Younger stronger healthier people perform the most difficult labor, older or handicapped people perform an equally useful job, perhaps for a longer period of time.

That is is a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Actually, this might end up having the desired result of people obeying the law on a more "frequent" basis.

I agree that is would likely be a more effective deterrent, but it would be a lot more costly and without fines where would the funds to pay these costs come from?

And isn't that what the laws are there for? To be obeyed?

Yes.

 

[carrrnuttt]

Why not alter the penalty phase of all traffic citations?

No more financial penalties, no more insurance rates going up, no more money going to any agency or city at all.

All penalties will be labor based.

Set up a sliding scale based on ability to perform work. Younger stronger healthier people perform the most difficult labor, older or handicapped people perform an equally useful job, perhaps for a longer period of time.

It could be anything from a days work washing the sidewalk in front of city hall, or painting a homeless shelter, to street construction. And the more serious the infraction, the longer the labor time. Actual inconvenience may be a much greater penalty for most drivers. Since many people would much rather whip out the credit card than have to devote a few days of their lives to a traffic penalty, maybe drivers would feel that spending a few minutes more to reach their destination isn't so bad, after all.

Actually, this might end up having the desired result of people obeying the law on a more "frequent" basis.

And isn't that what the laws are there for? To be obeyed?

I concur with this. It also helps those who might not be able to afford the fines, and helps out the community in return.

Also here's an article that contradicts the group think that showed up in this thread: Speeding? You'll pay higher 'taxes' - MSN Money

Some highlights:

Here's a tip for the next time you're barreling down U.S. 425 through northeastern Louisiana: If you see a sign that reads "Baskin Town Limits," slow down. Way down.

Baskin has been expecting you.

Between 2004 and 2006, little Baskin (population about 200) got 87% of its town budget from speeding tickets, the highest percentage of 304 Louisiana municipalities surveyed.

"It is primarily a tool in many communities to raise revenue," Louisiana state Rep. Hollis Downs, who represents two parishes in north-central Louisiana, says of the town's aggressive traffic enforcement -- what others might call speed traps.

Baskin is perhaps the most extreme example confirming what you've long suspected: Tickets are often as much about revenue as safety. And now, as a soured economy or other factors further empty coffers, many are turning to law enforcement to serve as part-time tax collectors -- with guns and badges.

Many states and cities no longer even try to hide that fact.

Making up for lost money

Cities, counties and other government agencies have found that there's lots of money to be made in stepped-up traffic enforcement:

• The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority said that it would collect an additional $1.2 million in fines from speeding tickets in 2008 to make up for lost revenue when troopers from the Massachusetts State Police were transferred the previous year to work around Boston's "Big Dig" project.
• In 2006, Massachusetts began a pilot program that rewarded state troopers for giving out tickets as opposed to warnings. The number of citations had been down in recent years, the Boston Herald quoted troopers at the time, and pressure was on the rise from both the courts and the insurance industry. Both profit from more civil fines. The State Police did not return calls for comment.
• New York City announced in November that it would hire 200 additional ticket agents to step up enforcement of laws prohibiting drivers from blocking intersections. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly estimated the black ink at $66 million a year.
• A law that went into effect July 1 in Colorado doubled fines for speeding (the supporting information noted it would raise about $12 million annually for the strapped state). Another law has made speed guns mandatory in road-work zones.
• In Arizona, speed-enforcement cameras generated citations worth more than $6 million in just the first two months after installation.

'Welcome to Detroit; here's a ticket'

The complicated -- sometimes comical -- experience of two Michigan police departments shows how sticky the issue can get.

A Detroit News analysis last fall found that metro-area police departments had "drastically increased" the number of tickets issued for moving violations as revenue from the state -- in the throes of multiple economic crises -- had declined markedly.

Talk back: Should strapped cities hand out more traffic tickets?

One department, in Romulus, issued 12,040 tickets in 2007 -- a 136% increase since 2002 -- despite a population of just 25,000, according to the newspaper's analysis. Detroit Metropolitan Airport sits within the city and is accessed by two interstate highways. Romulus unmarked patrol cars regularly ticket drivers exiting to the airport or accelerating away from it.

The city's traffic enforcement effort has grown so aggressive, some say, that a remarkable cat-and-mouse game has sprung up between airport officials and Romulus police.

"We have taken the initiative of alerting our customers," airport spokesman Michael Conway says. How? By handing out warning fliers to drivers and telling airport police to park near the unmarked patrol cars with their lights flashing, to slow motorists.

When the airport installed a temporary electronic radar signs that tells motorists "Your speed is . . ." Romulus police threatened to tow it away, Conway recalls, still chuckling in disbelief.

Romulus police Lt. John Leacher says officers don't have a mandate to fill city coffers. "We've been doing this (emphasis) for the last four years," he says, "and we haven't been doing anything different than we were then."

From July 1 to about mid-November, Romulus had issued tickets for about 10,000 moving violations, according to the airport's police chief, on pace to crush 2007's record.

It's not the welcome mat that the Detroit area should be rolling out, Conway says. "The first message out of town visitors get is, 'Welcome to Detroit; here's a ticket.'"

A new way to tax?

The simple fact is this: Governments have an incentive to write more tickets, says Thomas Garrett, an assistant vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and a co-author of a recent study, "Red Ink in the Rearview Mirror: Local Fiscal Conditions and the Issuance of Traffic Tickets" (.pdf file).


Garrett and his co-author, Gary Wagner, studied tickets issued by North Carolina counties over 14 years and found that "significantly more tickets are issued in the year following a decline in revenue."

But in years after revenue increases, there was no corresponding drop in traffic tickets, they wrote. "Our results suggest that tickets are used as a revenue generation tool rather than solely a means to increase public safety."

Why is this happening?

"Over the last couple of decades, state and local governments have pretty much exhausted their tax bases," and now they often have to seek voter approval for increased taxes, Garrett says. There have been occasional voter tax revolts. In short, there are incentives for officials to find other ways to raise money. Tickets are one such source.

As Garrett notes, "There's no voter approval on this revenue source."

Though Josh Barro, a staff economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, doesn't agree that all governments have tapped out their tax bases -- tax burdens can vary widely by state, he says -- he agrees that "there is a political impulse to raise fees instead of taxes."

After all, this is the country that has disliked taxes ever since the Boston Tea Party, Barro points out.

 

[carrrnuttt]

Indeed. Those decision were made by politicians not Law Enforcement.

And you and most of those that complain about revenue generation need to understand those decisions do NOT come from Law Enforcement. L.E.O.s job is to enforce the laws as written, regardless of the penalty or if revenue is generated.

This is what I've felt and believed all along. Blaming the officer is akin to blaming a construction worker for demolishing a landmark; the decision is usually above his or her head.

Once you stop inferring that L.E. has anything to do with these decisions.

When did I infer or imply anything of the sort? I just figured that some LEOs in here are honest enough with themselves, where they can admit that this sort of thing is happening, while qualifying that it's out of their hands, if and when it occurs. With the exception of the tiny municipalities with less than 5 officers, maybe.

FYI - you used my quote info for a lot of oldmodman's posts.

 

[RookieBeotch]

I think I remember reading about a certain European country, maybe Switzerland, that had their speeding tickets based on a 'ability to pay' type scale. It makes sense to me, trying to change the incentives a bit, and it seems pretty progressive, who knows if something like that would ever work here though.

 

[Colvin03SonicBl]

Exactly! Lets go ahead and blame the police for doing their jobs.

It's always our fault, isn't it?? :shrug:

We are the one's pushing the gas pedal, or talking on the phone or etc... :rolling:

 

[AnaheimE]

Cracking down on speeders in that area. Most likely the result of complaints by the community or to reduce the amount of accidents, etc. in the area..

I find that funny since a recent study has stated that speeding is responsible for less than 10 percent of observed accidents, and head on collision (crossing the median) was the highest at 30 percent.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

I find that funny since a recent study has stated that speeding is responsible for less than 10 percent of observed accidents, and head on collision (crossing the median) was the highest at 30 percent.

You completely miss half the picture here. My advice for you is to attend a town hall meeting and observe for yourself what the major complaints by the community are. Always at or near the top of the list is speeding vehicles.

Surprised you would find that funny, though.

 

[cuban]

i love hearing about the revenue of tickets. i know the state/county get a majority of it and i do agree that the LEO gets the wrong end for the blame, however growing up in wisconsin and knowing about the fines there i was ecstatic when the north dakota LEO gave me a 17 dollar ticket for ten over would have been 12 dollars but i was on the highway when he clocked me. The states and insurance companies need to work out an agreement because paying a 150 dollar fine and then having your insurance rates double is rediculous. Now if you get more than say 5 citations within two years you should not be allowed to drive. At least here in japan insurance is dirt cheap and you can get all the tickets you want and the rates stay the same however, a simple one mile over speeding ticket will cost right around 550 bucks, and a parking ticket the one my boss got at least was 250.

 

[JohninMD]

*removed by moderator* Post on-topic and constructively or not at all.