Evangelion

• From correspondents in New York
  May 21, 2003
  
  
  A TEENAGER has been issued with a ticket by police for sitting down on a plastic milk crate on a New York pavement. Jesse Taveras, 19, could now face a fine of up to $US105 ($161), while the police union has blamed the city's mayor for the crackdown.
  
  Taveras told how he stepped out for a breather from the Bronx hair-braiding salon where he works and sat down on the crate, which happened to be on the footpath. A New York City police officer walked up to him and wrote out the ticket citing him for "unauthorised use of a milk crate".
  
  The teenager told the New York Daily News the officer, identified only as police officer Payan, asked him for identification, radioed his name to the local precinct to check for outstanding warrants, found none and gave him the ticket.
  
  To Taveras's protests, Payan reportedly replied: "Don't blame me. Blame Bloomberg."
  
  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered a so-called "quality-of-life" crackdown involving writing summonses for minor, but revenue-producing, infractions. The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), the police union, has said Bloomberg is putting beat cops under pressure to write tickets, meet quotas and fill city coffers.
  
  "The NYPD (New York Police Department) has become a summons machine, generating millions of dollars to close the city's budget gap while eroding the relationship between police and the communities they serve," it said.
  
  The city government denies the allegations, particularly concerning quotas. Taveras said that in his case he asked Payan what he was doing wrong.
  
  "You're sitting," the policeman reportedly replied. "We have to make our daily quota."
  
  Noting Taveras's bewilderment, Payan's partner waved it off, according to the Daily News, saying: "It's no big deal. The judge will throw it out, anyway."
  
  Agence France-Presse
  
  
  Source.

Hayden

Umm, that was a joke... (note smiley)

So, a state already short on funds is ill-equipped to provide facilities for the purpose of ensuring that hundreds of people turn up every weekend to half-heartedly collect rubbish from the side of the highway, or whatever the local administrators can dream up. Further, I don't want to pay for these schemes. It could even lead to the state discouraging police officers from writing tickets, if what you're implying about traffic enforcement is true.

If, on the other hand, someone manages to devise a community service programme that is profitable, then the state will still benefit financially from it, and therefore encourage police to write tickets...

Are you in favour of higher taxes? What is wrong with law-violaters contributing to the upkeep of the law? I'll agree that quotas are bad, but any form of punishment is going to have a financial effect on the state, so it might as well be a positive one.

Personally, I'll take an $80 fine over 10 hours of community service, thanks very much.

By the way, traffic laws are for safety. I know that some drivers are better able to handle speed than others, but unless you're going to have graduated driver licenses or issue proficiency tests to all drivers caught speeding, I don't think you can differentiate. Regardless of your abilities, the safety of other drivers and pedestrians is dependent on their ability to predict the speed at which you are moving and the time in which they need to perform any manoeuvres. Likewise, wearing your safety belt stops the taxpayer shelling ot for someone to scrape your remains off the front of the SUV that just hit you head on, at the very least. If you know of any traffic laws that aren't even slightly related to safety, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Unless it had wheels and an engine, I fail to see the relevance.

HR

Ronin

That's a mighty sweeping generalization.

I have never been encouraged to write tickets to generate funds.

As a matter of fact, I was always bothered by the whole traffic stop scenario.

...until I worked my first fatality:

Article 2 of 2; 400 words
Published on November 15, 1995, Page C1, Sun Herald, The (Biloxi, MS)

SECOND TRIAL BEGINS ON DUI CHARGE IN FATALITY

Source: SHARON FITZHUGH
THE SUN HERALD
Eighteen-year-old Roy James Fiveash Jr. of Gulfport died on Tegarden Road 2 1/2 years ago on the day he and friends were celebrating his girlfriend's birthday.He and a friend had motorcycles and were heading to Fiveash's apartment to get helmets to take the girlfriends, waiting elsewhere, for a ride.A white Nissan truck backed onto Tegarden Road in front of Fiveash. He lost control and hit a pole, and the blow to his chest and body killed him.


Article 1 of 2; 438 words
Published on November 17, 1995, Page A1, Sun Herald, The (Biloxi, MS)

GULFPORT MAN GETS 20 YEARS FOR FATAL DUI POLICE SAY HOLLOWAY HAS 3 OTHER DUI CONVICTIONS

Source: SHARON FITZHUGH
THE SUN HERALD

A Gulfport man convicted Thursday of driving drunk and causing an April 1993 accident that killed a teen-ager has been convicted three other times for DUI, at least once for driving drunk after the fatal wreck.Circuit Court Judge Robert H. Walker sentenced Stephen Edward Holloway to 20 years in prison Thursday after a jury took one hour to find him guilty.Holloway, 42, was charged in Gulfport with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without a license in February 1994...

Loren Pechtel

The speed limit generally needs raising. However, it's more than just speed limits. It's also red lights. Set the light too short, stake it out and rack up the tickets.

One that bit me personally--pedestrians. According to the cop I failed to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk. I took traffic school to avoid the points--what did I learn? That the cop was wrong, what I did was legal!

The point is that the current system encourages tickets for things which might technically be illegal but aren't actually wrong.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Hayden
So, a state already short on funds is ill-equipped to provide facilities for the purpose of ensuring that hundreds of people turn up every weekend to half-heartedly collect rubbish from the side of the highway, or whatever the local administrators can dream up. Further, I don't want to pay for these schemes. It could even lead to the state discouraging police officers from writing tickets, if what you're implying about traffic enforcement is true.

I think this would be preferable to the current system. If the cops quit writing nonsense tickets there wouldn't need to be all that much spent on it.

If, on the other hand, someone manages to devise a community service programme that is profitable, then the state will still benefit financially from it, and therefore encourage police to write tickets...

True--which is why the system must be set up to cost the state money.

Are you in favour of higher taxes? What is wrong with law-violaters contributing to the upkeep of the law? I'll agree that quotas are bad, but any form of punishment is going to have a financial effect on the state, so it might as well be a positive one.

The problem is that for the most part I don't see them as posing any threat to anyone--it shouldn't be illegal.

Personally, I'll take an $80 fine over 10 hours of community service, thanks very much.

Of course. Most of us would.

Note, however, that the true cost is generally a lot higher--your insurance goes up.

By the way, traffic laws are for safety. I know that some drivers are better able to handle speed than others, but unless you're going to have graduated driver licenses or issue proficiency tests to all drivers caught speeding, I don't think you can differentiate.

I'm saying the posted limits are generally too low, making it not a safety issue. If the true safe speed is 50 and you post at 40 are you doing anything but making money? No.

Likewise, wearing your safety belt stops the taxpayer shelling ot for someone to scrape your remains off the front of the SUV that just hit you head on, at the very least. If you know of any traffic laws that aren't even slightly related to safety, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Seatbelt is a legitimate offense.

Unless it had wheels and an engine, I fail to see the relevance.

The point is that it's a clear example of the police ticketing for revenue purposes.

Loren Pechtel

Note what the guy did: DUI. Ever see me objecting to DUI tickets? If anything I think we need stiffer DUI penalties.

If you think tickets for revenue don't exist, look at the article posted by Evangelion.

Calzaer

I'm trying to turn onto a busy street. I think I see an opening. I know the limit is 45; if the next guy coming is doing 45-55, I can make it. The next guy coming is doing 75. He slams into the driver's side of my vehicle and I die. Thanks, no-speeding-ticket-advocates!

johngalt

:boohoo:

Well, it's your own damn fault for trying to make it. In driver's ed, you are taught to have proper judgment and be safe. I'm up for the stiffer DUI penalties, but not for speeding penalties.

Loren Pechtel

I'm not advocating no speeding tickets. I'm advocating only giving tickets for speeds which are actually excessive given the situation.

As for your example: The situation you describe is your fault. You could see him, why did you turn?

Bumble Bee Tuna

Calzaer: If you are incapable of judging a car's speed by actually observing its motion instead of assuming, you shouldn't be driving. Furthermore, nobody advocates a 75 mph speed limit on a non-highway road, so your example is truly moot. And if the street is busy, a guy going 75 will quickly be forced to slow dowm, so the situation you describe would practically be impossible even if there were no speed limit! If it's a busy street with no spaces for you to cut in, all the cars will be going about the same speed, in which case it's easy for you to observe what speed the cars in the back of the line will be travelling and make decisions accordingly. Basically, if you drive like your example says you drive, you're a poor driver.

-B