• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Tickets are about safety?!?!

http://www.northjersey.com/news/pat...ng-250-layoffs-traffic-ticket-blitz-1.1645842

They're specifically budgeting an extra $3 million in ticket revenue because of budget problems. How can anyone pretend that's about safety?

It isn't. The problem is a lack of revenue, and since the entire nation has been gripped by this notion that taxes are the most evil thing ever, governments have to figure out a way to make up the shortfall.


Of course the traffic tickets won't make up for that lost revenue. 80 traffic tickets a day per officer is 10 per hour over the course of an 8 hour shift, meaning each ticket stop could be no more than six minutes long. And that's assuming no down time between stops.


I've had many tickets in my driving career. No stop ever was that short.

What needs to happen here is that this place has to raise taxes.
 
Of course the traffic tickets won't make up for that lost revenue. 80 traffic tickets a day per officer is 10 per hour over the course of an 8 hour shift, meaning each ticket stop could be no more than six minutes long. And that's assuming no down time between stops.
not per officer, just per day per all officers.
 
Of course the traffic tickets won't make up for that lost revenue. 80 traffic tickets a day per officer is 10 per hour over the course of an 8 hour shift, meaning each ticket stop could be no more than six minutes long. And that's assuming no down time between stops.
That could be done.
Pull over rust buckets or young drivers. Write two or three tickets per stop. Their speeding, or whatever you pulled them over for, one or two technical problems with the car, threaten to search...
 
Of course the traffic tickets won't make up for that lost revenue. 80 traffic tickets a day per officer is 10 per hour over the course of an 8 hour shift, meaning each ticket stop could be no more than six minutes long. And that's assuming no down time between stops.
That could be done.
Pull over rust buckets or young drivers. Write two or three tickets per stop. Their speeding, or whatever you pulled them over for, one or two technical problems with the car, threaten to search...

This assumes the fines will be collected. Traffic fines are a fairly inefficient way to raise revenue. It only takes a small percentage of those ticketed to contest the citation and the court system is overwhelmed. Every contested ticket takes the officer off the streets for at least half a day. A cop in court can't issue tickets.
 
http://www.northjersey.com/news/pat...ng-250-layoffs-traffic-ticket-blitz-1.1645842

They're specifically budgeting an extra $3 million in ticket revenue because of budget problems. How can anyone pretend that's about safety?

Any reason it can't be both?

Because the same actions and types of tickets don't optimize both safety and revenue raising, thus they directly compete for the time and attention of police officers.
Parking violations have near zero to do with safety, but are the easiest and most common way to raise ticketing revenue. Finding or artificially creating speed traps (such as by creating nonsensical and rapidly changing speed limits) raises revenue but likely increases accidents. In general most of the best ways to increase traffic tickets will not target the traffic violations most related to safety.

Not to mention, it would likely increase racial disparities in ticketing. If you are looking for any minor violation to ticket, you'll get the best hit rate in poor, minority neighborhoods. Nothing but bad things result. People of all political stripes should strongly oppose the use of law enforcement and public safety officers to raise revenues.
 
http://www.northjersey.com/news/pat...ng-250-layoffs-traffic-ticket-blitz-1.1645842

They're specifically budgeting an extra $3 million in ticket revenue because of budget problems. How can anyone pretend that's about safety?

Any reason it can't be both?

This.

I don't know about your city, but in my city, the cops are very unconcerned with the state of your car or minor moving violations. I've been driving around with an expired license plate and tags (I did buy them, they're still sitting on the floorboard of my car since last winter) and I haven't been pulled over once. I could see them making up deficits by actually enforcing the minor violations they normally let slide.
 
Any reason it can't be both?

This.

I don't know about your city, but in my city, the cops are very unconcerned with the state of your car or minor moving violations. I've been driving around with an expired license plate and tags (I did buy them, they're still sitting on the floorboard of my car since last winter) and I haven't been pulled over once. I could see them making up deficits by actually enforcing the minor violations they normally let slide.

This. Unless you are brown.
 
Not to mention, it would likely increase racial disparities in ticketing.
Is this a bad thing? If police target blacks, that's one thing, and that thing is targeting, and if there is targeting involved, that could likely increase this other thing, disparity. I'm thinking that a disparity is not a bad thing in and of itself. I'm also thinking that the circumstances behind the disparity can sometimes be a bad thing.

If you are looking for any minor violation to ticket, you'll get the best hit rate in poor, minority neighborhoods.
Awe, now this is targeting, and targeting can lead to disparity. I'm not saying such targeting is wrong. I have an idea of something that is wrong, but I'm not ready to concede that that is wrong, but for the sake of argument, I'll suppose it is, only because I'm interested in knowing whether my suspicion is correct. My suspicion is that racial disparity is not bad. What might lead to racial disparity very well might be, but regardless, the disparity itself not necessarily.

If an officer is prejudice and because of that prejudice targets a black and especially if he let's whites slide for the same offense, that to me is clearly prejudice based targeting of blacks--that (to me) clearly comes across as bad. What matters is the why. If an officer targets an area where more offences are more likely to occur because he's interested in writing more citations, then the disparity that results is incidental to the true target.

Yet, people who are hellbent on espousing racism cite the disparity that results. The statistical results is one thing, but what seems so very important to me would be an accurate unbiased interpretation of those numerical facts ... facts often cast as evidence of rampant racism.

By the way, if poor neighborhoods are so much more apt to be places where illegal traffic offenses occur, wouldn't that be a justification for targeting them? Just like disparity, not even targeting is necessarily a bad thing. It's the why. If you target a specific road where rich white kids notoriously speed, you don't set up addition patrols because you're a disgruntled black cop with a taste for revenge because of past racial transgressions, nor do you target such places because of how financially well off they are. You don't target them because of their color. Target the area for good reasons, and as disparities change, notice the other disparities that change. But, don't judge a wide eye-opening disparity without a proper unbiased neutral interpretation.

I'm not making accusations towards you--just trying to express my skepticism towards others who are quick to find ugly because of stats.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom