Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/20/2003 9:23:21 AM EDT
Just went to lunch at a place near my office.

The intersection is a busy one, near a highway interchange, and retail/commercial district.

At the stoplight are 2 police officers on foot, and 3 cruisers on the side of the road; a state trooper, a county sherrif, and a city cop (from a different city). At the intersection is a city cop. And a bunch more cruisers in the area.

2 big signs on side of road..."seat belt enforcement zone".

Here in Michigan, they have been advertising this "Click it or Ticket" program on the radio and television quite a bit. $65.00 fine for no seatbelt. In Michigan, the law says you must wear a seatbelt, and yes, not wearing a belt is enough to get you pulled over.

They were birddogging cars at the intersection, and then nailing people.

I am a big believer in seatbelts, and always wear mine, however, I am offended at this "checkpoint charlie" approach, and feel like I should be giving these guys a seig heil type salute.

What's next, they just set up on an intersection and ask - (accent on) "Your Papers Please?"

I know, " Its for the Children, and if it makes the streets safer, its all worthwhile.."

I think they are just generating revenue because the politicians have no incentive to control budgets, and they are pussies about raising taxes.

So - they unleash the JBTs to generate revenue.

Please sound off if you think this is BS too...


Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:28:24 AM EDT
Yes, this is bs. I have recieved a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in the past. It was combined with a traffic violation however. I know of no one here that has been pulled over solely for not wearing a seat belt.

I would be pissed if they were doing that shit myself. It does seem to be very gestapo like.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:30:25 AM EDT
So, with all that advertising, radio, perhaps some TV, billboards, newspaper, etc. Everyone pretty much has fair warning that this law is going to be vigorously enforced, right?
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:33:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
So, with all that advertising, radio, perhaps some TV, billboards, newspaper, etc. Everyone pretty much has fair warning that this law is going to be vigorously enforced, right?




You are either a cop or someone who doesn't get the big picture here.

The original poster was making the point that the local government is trying to make up for lost revenue by setting up checkpoints. Not checkpoints for DUI, checkpoints for seatbelts.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:34:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 9:35:07 AM EDT by meltdown]
it's bullshit
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:34:46 AM EDT
In some states, including Fla. seatbelt violations are "secondary" offenses, meaning that you can't be pulled over for that alone, but can be cited for it if pulled over for something else.

These Great Nanny laws are deeply offensive in any event.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:34:49 AM EDT
Killing babies is OK - after all, "it's the mother's body" (even though it isn't) and she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. But if we don't wear a seatbelt we get in trouble!

ERRGH!

How does not wearing a seatbelt hurt anyone else???
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:40:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
How does not wearing a seatbelt hurt anyone else???



some argue that you have the abilty to maintain control better when you aren't being tossed around inside the car.

In this state there is a seatbelt law but no helmet law for motorcycles.

Personally, I don't think either one should be a law. If someone is dumb enough not to buckle up or wear a helmet then let Darwinism run it's course.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:40:30 AM EDT

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:41:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
So, with all that advertising, radio, perhaps some TV, billboards, newspaper, etc. Everyone pretty much has fair warning that this law is going to be vigorously enforced, right?



Most states also have a website where they publish where all the stops are going to be. I know NY does anyway...

Anyway.

Public road --> Public Law Enforcment --> Breaking the law --> Fine.

There is a big difference between "asking for your papers" which implies you dont have a right travel and the government is keeping track of you vs. ticketing people for breaking the law.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:42:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
Killing babies is OK - after all, "it's the mother's body" (even though it isn't) and she should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. But if we don't wear a seatbelt we get in trouble!

ERRGH!

How does not wearing a seatbelt hurt anyone else???



Damn, I love how when a thread is not about abortion, it still gets thrown in. Get a fucking life.

I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:43:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By meltdown:
Personally, I don't think either one should be a law. If someone is dumb enough not to buckle up or wear a helmet then let Darwinism run it's course.



Ahh yes, but what if they dont die? What about when they wind up on disability and your insurance company is paying them unemployment ergo driving up insurance rates.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:43:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 9:47:15 AM EDT by Greenhorn]
Oh wait, I get it. You have to buckle up because if you die, that's a LOT more paperwork for the police and others to fill out, and that's a lot of precious time wasted. But killing a baby, that just takes a few minutes and doesn't even need a parental OK.

LarryG: Blatant hypocrisy pisses me off, so I'm going to point it out when I see it whether you like it or not.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:48:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.



Wow. refuse medical treatment ? That seems a wee bit harsh.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:51:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 9:51:20 AM EDT by ZRH]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.



No medical treatment at all even if you pay for it yourself?
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:51:07 AM EDT
Lets get back to the point, do you think it's right to collect taxes in this manner.

I don't think this was meant to be a debate over the right or wrong about seat belts.

It seems the original poster is concerned about the manner in which his local government is trying to raise revenue.

I really don't think this is a public safety effort, I think it a tax collecting event, pure and simple.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:52:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 9:53:24 AM EDT by ZRH]

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:
Lets get back to the point, do you think it's right to collect taxes in this manner.

I don't think this was meant to be a debate over the right or wrong about seat belts.

It seems the original poster is concerned about the manner in which his local government is trying to raise revenue.

I really don't think this is a public safety effort, I think it a tax collecting event, pure and simple.



You think?
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:53:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZRH:
Ahh yes, but what if they dont die? What about when they wind up on disability and your insurance company is paying them unemployment ergo driving up insurance rates.



Therefore, old people should be prohibited from bathing because they fall & break their hips in their tubs and end up with either your insurance or (tax-funded)Medicare paying the doctor bills. Skydiving should be prohibited for the same reasons as driving w/o a seatbelt. Ditto rugby, skin diving, tree climbing, and diving into water.

Yessirree, you got it nailed. Any voluntary behavior that carries a risk of injury beyond that presented by sitting in a Barcalounger should be prohibited because of its potential impact on insurance rates and tax expenditures. Wait! Sitting in the Barcalounger all the time makes you fat and unhealthy and you'll need extra medical attention!

But anyway, your theory is sound. All human behavior is subject to governmental regulation and/or prohibition because it may have economic effects on others. So tell me, does your position derive from Lenin, Mussolini, or Pelosi?
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:53:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 9:55:01 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
Oh wait, I get it. You have to buckle up because if you die, that's a LOT more paperwork for the police and others to fill out, and that's a lot of precious time wasted. But killing a baby, that just takes a few minutes and doesn't even need a parental OK.

LarryG: Blatant hypocrisy pisses me off, so I'm going to point it out when I see it whether you like it or not.



You can point out all you want, but you, as usual are wrong, and your opinion is worthless.

This thread is not about abortion. Again, get a fucking life and mind your own business. If a woman chooses to get an abortion, the bottom line is that it is none of your business.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:54:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZRH:

Originally Posted By meltdown:
Personally, I don't think either one should be a law. If someone is dumb enough not to buckle up or wear a helmet then let Darwinism run it's course.



Ahh yes, but what if they dont die? What about when they wind up on disability and your insurance company is paying them unemployment ergo driving up insurance rates.



good point. don't get me started on insurance!
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:56:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By meltdown:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.



Wow. refuse medical treatment ? That seems a wee bit harsh.



Yeah, maybe so, but that's the way I see it. I don't have much sympathy for those who won't wear a seat belt. It doesn't take much time or effort to engage the belt.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:57:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZRH:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.



No medical treatment at all even if you pay for it yourself?



Nope.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:57:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZRH:

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:
Lets get back to the point, do you think it's right to collect taxes in this manner.

I don't think this was meant to be a debate over the right or wrong about seat belts.

It seems the original poster is concerned about the manner in which his local government is trying to raise revenue.

I really don't think this is a public safety effort, I think it a tax collecting event, pure and simple.



You think?




I think so.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:58:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:
Lets get back to the point, do you think it's right to collect taxes in this manner.

I don't think this was meant to be a debate over the right or wrong about seat belts.

It seems the original poster is concerned about the manner in which his local government is trying to raise revenue.

I really don't think this is a public safety effort, I think it a tax collecting event, pure and simple.



I agree, it's just another revenue collection tool.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:01:01 AM EDT
If we have to use sworn police officers as collection tools. Maybe we have two many
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:08:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:

Originally Posted By shotar:
So, with all that advertising, radio, perhaps some TV, billboards, newspaper, etc. Everyone pretty much has fair warning that this law is going to be vigorously enforced, right?




You are either a cop or someone who doesn't get the big picture here.

The original poster was making the point that the local government is trying to make up for lost revenue by setting up checkpoints. Not checkpoints for DUI, checkpoints for seatbelts.



I get the picture entirely and perfectly clearly. I also know that it costs more to enforce these laws than is generated for any municipality by enforcement.

The legislature passed a law, they then widely advertised that the law would be vigorously enforced. They then sent out law enforcement officers to enforce this same law. Therefore, it is my conclusion that anyone who gets caught through this enforcement was in all likelihood clearly warned, informed, and by the presence of all those enforcement units up ahead, again put on notice that the law was going to be enforced. You cry tax collection, I say public safety enforcement.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:09:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:

Originally Posted By shotar:
So, with all that advertising, radio, perhaps some TV, billboards, newspaper, etc. Everyone pretty much has fair warning that this law is going to be vigorously enforced, right?




You are either a cop or someone who doesn't get the big picture here.

The original poster was making the point that the local government is trying to make up for lost revenue by setting up checkpoints. Not checkpoints for DUI, checkpoints for seatbelts.



First there wern't checkpoints described. He indicated officer were "birdogging" an intersection, and stopping drivers/vehicles suspected of traffic violations.

That seems much different than a "checkpoint".

The officers were in a public place observing behavior of people in public.

Also the federal government is sponsoring a national highway safety effort for around Thanksgiving. Part of it is PSA's and media coverage to highlight the need for seatbelts, dangers of DUI etc.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:20:02 AM EDT
You could make a point by completely removing the seatbelts from your car.

How can they ticket you for not using a safety device your car doesn't have?

Lawsuit, anyone?

CJ

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:20:13 AM EDT
Just because you aggressively adverise that you are doing something objectionable does not make it right.

I am a believer in seat belts. I also believe in personal responsibility.

I do object to law enforcement setting up a check point charlie to generate revenue in this manner.

I find the law offensive, and I find this type of enforcement offensive to me.

I really get cranky about the slow erosion of individual freedoms and civil rights for dubious purposes like "public safety."

What's next?

Anyone that thinks the JBTs need another reason to pull over a motorist has his head in the sand.

And thinking that setting up traps to catch people will change behavior is a mistake.

This is about revenue generation, and budget justification, especially when the local agencies are incented to generate the revenue by getting to keep a slice of the pie.

Remember, a large bureaucracy does not exist for anything other than its own growth and preservation, in spite of what the public message states...

PS... Hell hath no fury like a vested interest parading as a moral issue...
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:25:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:

Originally Posted By shotar:
So, with all that advertising, radio, perhaps some TV, billboards, newspaper, etc. Everyone pretty much has fair warning that this law is going to be vigorously enforced, right?




You are either a cop or someone who doesn't get the big picture here.

The original poster was making the point that the local government is trying to make up for lost revenue by setting up checkpoints. Not checkpoints for DUI, checkpoints for seatbelts.



First there wern't checkpoints described. He indicated officer were "birdogging" an intersection, and stopping drivers/vehicles suspected of traffic violations.

That seems much different than a "checkpoint".

The officers were in a public place observing behavior of people in public.

Also the federal government is sponsoring a national highway safety effort for around Thanksgiving. Part of it is PSA's and media coverage to highlight the need for seatbelts, dangers of DUI etc.



Hey, I know, why don't I go hang out in a public place, say the road, near where you worship or gather with your friends and observe your behavior. How would you like that? Its all for the public safety...

I know, lets take cops from multiple enforcement agencies and station them around ( fill in house of worship of your choice) and just "observe" who comes and gos.

Just because they are in public, and they have been advertising doesn't make it right.

Still feels "skeevy" to me, and puts my blood to boiling.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:27:31 AM EDT
How many checkpoints are going to end up being enough. As far as I can see one is to many.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:28:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DAC_2141:

Hey, I know, why don't I go hang out in a public place, say the road, near where you worship or gather with your friends and observe your behavior. How would you like that? Its all for the public safety...

I know, lets take cops from multiple enforcement agencies and station them around ( fill in house of worship of your choice) and just "observe" who comes and gos.

Just because they are in public, and they have been advertising doesn't make it right.

Still feels "skeevy" to me, and puts my blood to boiling.



Have you ever heard of stalking?

Your right, cops should have to have warrants to go out in public, to watch how other people behave in public.

The nerve of cops, going where anyone else in this country can go.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:36:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By ZRH:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.



No medical treatment at all even if you pay for it yourself?



Nope.


Now see, this is just stupid. "You can't have medical treatment, because you were not wearing your seatbelt. I don't care if you have a half-million dollars in your back pocket. We will NOT treat you."

Uh huh.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:38:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 10:41:24 AM EDT by Greenhorn]

this thread is not about abortion. Again, get a fucking life and mind your own business. If a woman chooses to get an abortion, the bottom line is that it is none of your business.


It's also none of my buisness if a mother drowns her children in a bathtub.

Getting back on subject, and turning off the sarcasm, it is none of anyone else's buisness if I decide not to wear my seatbelt. It doesn't hurt anyone else.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:40:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
I know that it costs more to enforce these laws than is generated for any municipality by enforcement.

You cry tax collection, I say public safety enforcement.


Shotar, my internet friend, I have heard you (and a couple of others) say this on more than one occasion. I question whether your claim is correct:

1. LEOs have a work schedule that is similiar to most of the rest of us. They get paid hourly. They work between 40-50hrs. per week. That much is true, correct?

2. If said LEOs sat behind a desk for those 40-50hrs. and simply answered phones, they'd get paid for their time just as much as an LEO who pulled traffic duty for those same 40-50hrs., correct?

3. In those 40-50hrs., the desk-bound LEO would've generated $0.00 for the agency/municipality he worked in, correct?

4. Let's say the traffic-duty LEO wrote 20 tickets in those same 40-50hrs. and the revenue totalled $1,500.00 (that was eventually paid).

Seems to me, every LEO is getting paid regardless of the duty he is pulling at the time. When they can write tickets and generate revenue through them, that is all a plus. Now, I know you will probably then bring up the fact that I shouldn't forget that "the officer has to go to traffic court for many of those tickets," but let's say he spent an entire week's worth of time at the courthouse, big deal, he was getting paid whether he sat behind a desk, pulled traffic duty, or sat in court all day. The difference is he simply didn't get to write more tickets that day. Oh well, there's always the next day for revenue-generation, right?

If you should bring up the amount of money the "criminal justice system" spends on traffic tickets, the same applies there, too. Let's say in one week, the courts were packed full, and the next week they were empty, the judge and prosecutors are still getting paid no matter what.

However, we all know our courts will never be empty, don't we. The "system" simply wouldn't allow it.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:41:50 AM EDT
I would like to address the question posed by the thread. That questions seems to be, "Do you support this 'tax collection' scheme?"

First off, some of you are arguing that you don't like seat belt laws. Fine. Elect congressmen that will abolish them. Until you do, it is the law. And Police Officers are sworn to uphold the laws. They didn't write them. They are just enforcing them.

The law requires them to issue tickets for violators. That's what they do.

Second question: Is this tax collection?

This is the silliest argument I see over and over on this site. Police Officers are not "collecting taxes". When I was cop, I didn't care if the city made any money on the tickets I issued. I didn't get a dime of the money. Whether I wrote a lot of tickets or a few, I made the same salary.

The purpose of assessing fines for violating the law is to influence behavior and cause people to obey the laws. Some people drive at dangerous speeds. So, the state makes them pay a fine to cause them to regret their behavior and quit speeding.

If they do not change their behavior, society has the right and the obligation to make them regret their failure to obey the rules of society.

You don't like to follow the rules of civilized society? Fine. Buy an island and move there. But if you want to live with the rest of us, you will have to submit to the will of the people. The will of the people is called the laws of society.

It is not unreasonable to expect people to follow these laws. Including wearing seat belts to reduce the severity of injuries.


Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:41:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
You could make a point by completely removing the seatbelts from your car.

How can they ticket you for not using a safety device your car doesn't have?

Lawsuit, anyone?

CJ



You dont pass inspection.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:44:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By ZRH:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
I don't need a damn law to tell me to wear seat belts. I don't think that there should be a seat belt law, but if you are injured as a result of not wearing one, you should get no medical treatment. Choices have consequences.



No medical treatment at all even if you pay for it yourself?



Nope.



Sorry, you lose.

You are either a communist/socialist or just stupid. This is america, if you can pay for it, you can get it.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:47:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would like to address the question posed by the thread. That questions seems to be, "Do you support this 'tax collection' scheme?"

First off, some of you are arguing that you don't like seat belt laws. Fine. Elect congressmen that will abolish them. Until you do, it is the law. And Police Officers are sworn to uphold the laws. They didn't write them. They are just enforcing them.

The law requires them to issue tickets for violators. That's what they do.

Second question: Is this tax collection?

This is the silliest argument I see over and over on this site. Police Officers are not "collecting taxes". When I was cop, I didn't care if the city made any money on the tickets I issued. I didn't get a dime of the money. Whether I wrote a lot of tickets or a few, I made the same salary.

The purpose of assessing fines for violating the law is to influence behavior and cause people to obey the laws. Some people drive at dangerous speeds. So, the state makes them pay a fine to cause them to regret their behavior and quit speeding.

If they do not change their behavior, society has the right and the obligation to make them regret their failure to obey the rules of society.

You don't like to follow the rules of civilized society? Fine. Buy an island and move there. But if you want to live with the rest of us, you will have to submit to the will of the people. The will of the people is called the laws of society.

It is not unreasonable to expect people to follow these laws. Including wearing seat belts to reduce the severity of injuries.



Give this man a cookie.

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:48:55 AM EDT



There is a big difference between "asking for your papers" which implies you dont have a right travel and the government is keeping track of you vs. ticketing people for breaking the law.



you don't have the right to travel

it's impossible for me to get from here to my parents house without walking on a public road
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:51:16 AM EDT
Succesful argument have been made that being in your car is not considered being in public so to speak.

Your car is private property operated on public roads. When you step out of your car, you are now in public. Why do you think cops either need to be able to see drugs in the car to search without a warrant or permission from the owner or operator of the car?

So when they set up "bird dogs" on the corner for the sole purpose to root out nasty seat belt law violators, it is a sad state we live it. If they need money that bad, why don't they just put a toll on the road.

Lets be clear here, this doesn't mean shit about public safety or the cops would simply tell the people to put their seat belts on. They wouldn't charge a tax for getting caught.

The cops can't pop your trunk and look inside without permission or probable cause. That's the point, your car is private property.

Anyway, to the guy who said it costs money to run this stuff, just look at WobblinGoblin's post, you will get your answer there.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:57:53 AM EDT
was this "observation post" set up in such a way that you couldn't avoid it, once you spotted it, without pulling a u turn and breaking another law?



Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:09:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 11:14:07 AM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:

So when they set up "bird dogs" on the corner for the sole purpose to root out nasty seat belt law violators, it is a sad state we live it. If they need money that bad, why don't they just put a toll on the road.



That is exactly right. If the purpose was tax collection, they would put up a toll road. The fact that they don't proves that this isn't about "tax collection".

But the purpose isn't tax collection. The purpose is to get people to obey the law regarding seat belts.


Lets be clear here, this doesn't mean shit about public safety or the cops would simply tell the people to put their seat belts on. They wouldn't charge a tax for getting caught.


It is not a tax. It is a penality to change your behavior. If the cops just said, "Please wear your seat belt", the people would put it on, but forget the next time they drove. Paying a fine makes them remember to change their behavior.


The cops can't pop your trunk and look inside without permission or probable cause. That's the point, your car is private property.




A car is indeed private property. But what can be observed from outside, such as whether the seat belt is being worn, is not an illegal search.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:21:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:



There is a big difference between "asking for your papers" which implies you dont have a right travel and the government is keeping track of you vs. ticketing people for breaking the law.



you don't have the right to travel

it's impossible for me to get from here to my parents house without walking on a public road



Actually I had that same argument with Kar98...

There isnt any law specifically excluding you from traveling in public therefore you can. so it's all 10th amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:28:01 AM EDT
The intersection is a divided one with indirect left hand turns, etc. so when you are moving through it, there is no way to avoid the eyes of John Q Law.

Hey, I guess this isn't about tax collection per se, but a proxy for taxes, which is the fine of $65.00 for no seat belt. And I bet there are some prying eyes looking around the vehicles, and running plates and DL numbers for other violations too. If it were really about safety, would they run plates, etc. or just hand out a pre-printed ticket and fine for $65.00.

So - others may think this is about law enforcement and safety, and but it is a thinly veiled assault on your individual freedom.

Stating -- oh, its okay with me, because I wear my seat belt is similar to stating - hey, I only duck hunt, so, why should I care if they outlaw semi-automatic rifles and pistols?
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:33:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 11:39:59 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By shotar:
I know that it costs more to enforce these laws than is generated for any municipality by enforcement.

You cry tax collection, I say public safety enforcement.


Shotar, my internet friend, I have heard you (and a couple of others) say this on more than one occasion. I question whether your claim is correct:

1. LEOs have a work schedule that is similiar to most of the rest of us. They get paid hourly. They work between 40-50hrs. per week. That much is true, correct?

2. If said LEOs sat behind a desk for those 40-50hrs. and simply answered phones, they'd get paid for their time just as much as an LEO who pulled traffic duty for those same 40-50hrs., correct?

3. In those 40-50hrs., the desk-bound LEO would've generated $0.00 for the agency/municipality he worked in, correct?

4. Let's say the traffic-duty LEO wrote 20 tickets in those same 40-50hrs. and the revenue totalled $1,500.00 (that was eventually paid).

Seems to me, every LEO is getting paid regardless of the duty he is pulling at the time. When they can write tickets and generate revenue through them, that is all a plus. Now, I know you will probably then bring up the fact that I shouldn't forget that "the officer has to go to traffic court for many of those tickets," but let's say he spent an entire week's worth of time at the courthouse, big deal, he was getting paid whether he sat behind a desk, pulled traffic duty, or sat in court all day. The difference is he simply didn't get to write more tickets that day. Oh well, there's always the next day for revenue-generation, right?

If you should bring up the amount of money the "criminal justice system" spends on traffic tickets, the same applies there, too. Let's say in one week, the courts were packed full, and the next week they were empty, the judge and prosecutors are still getting paid no matter what.

However, we all know our courts will never be empty, don't we. The "system" simply wouldn't allow it.



I don't have fact and figures in front of me. But the avg $156.40 traffic citation in WI actually has appx a $40.00 fine. The rest goes to victims funds, crime lab fee, jail fee, Court automation (records), etc. So on a 156.40 citation the max the issuing agency can get is $40.00. Seems kinda a losing propostion.

They pay me $23 an hour, plus appx $11 per hour in benefits. I drive a car that they tell me costs $48,000 avg for car and equipment (mine actually costs more than that avg, I have more stuff). Plus it costs to run the car.

I am pretty sure I am the top ticket writer on my shift. I write 10% of my tickets as DUI, 20% as no DL, suspended DL, revoked DL. I write 20 percent as misc. and 30% as speed. Other citations may include non-miving or ordnance citations.

Generally I write 1 ticket every 3 stops I make. My avg. speed stop is probably 20+ over. Bear in mind I work mostly 2 lane 55 mph roads. Appx 1/4 of my speed citations are high enough over the limit so that a conviction will mean a license suspension.

My general rule, is 1 citation issued per citation worthy stop. Obviously if you are drunk, revoked, and doing 100 mpg, that rule isn't in effect.

Ready get this, I write 1.66 citations per shift. That's right, as the top performer I right 10 citations during a 6 day work week.

Other shifts have different standards, I would not be close to the top during day shift.

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) So if 20 citations are issued and each generates $75.00, 1,500.00 would be raised. Ok in 40 hours it costs $920.00 in my basic wages, plus as I said vehicle, equipment, and fuel costs. Oh, it also costs to have another officer, a Court Officer, present those citations to the DA/Court. It also costs money for the filing clerk to file them, and to enter the basic information into a computer database. By the way the computer costs money too. It may also cost money to have any reports related to those citations transcibed.

I think your 1,500 is looking kinda slim. It also costs to have the DA's office prosecute, and the Court hear any citations. It also costs $70-100 to get me into Court.

If you arguement is that some of the cost associated with employing me can be defrayed by citation revenue, yes. However in most cases the costs aren't covered by the "revenue".

Some of my co-workers are notorious for 0 citations. One would issue seat belt tickets on every stop instead of the citation for the moving violation that caused the stop. Seat belt tickets are $10 for adults in WI. They cost $38 to process, so each citation cost $28....

Last week I wrote the following citations (IIRC)

79/55 - 2 career criminals in a borrowed car with the wrong plates

77/55 (knocked down to 70)

No DL 2nd

Failure to stop at stop sign, He admitted doing 50/35 and blowing 2 intersections at that speed. I estimated 55-60, and saw the first stop sign violation. Told him, and meant it, next time it would be a Reckless Driving citation.

75/55 Passing in a no passing zone, kinda close to oncoming traffic, knocked down to 70/55

That's a whole week of citations, as best as I can remeber.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:38:34 AM EDT

Lets be clear here, this doesn't mean shit about public safety or the cops would simply tell the people to put their seat belts on. They wouldn't charge a tax for getting caught.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




It is not a tax. It is a penality to change your behavior. If the cops just said, "Please wear your seat belt", the people would put it on, but forget the next time they drove. Paying a fine makes them remember to change their behavior.



i think public flogging would make them change their behavior a little better
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:39:23 AM EDT
Oly---you forgot the millions that the feds pay the state because you are writing tickets for the laws that the feds blackmailed them into passing.....
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:40:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZRH:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:



There is a big difference between "asking for your papers" which implies you dont have a right travel and the government is keeping track of you vs. ticketing people for breaking the law.



you don't have the right to travel

it's impossible for me to get from here to my parents house without walking on a public road



Actually I had that same argument with Kar98...

There isnt any law specifically excluding you from traveling in public therefore you can. so it's all 10th amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.





next time you are going down the on ramp onto the interstate, look at the signs

"no pedestrians allowed"

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:45:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:
Succesful argument have been made that being in your car is not considered being in public so to speak.



Yeah, your driving on a public road, in a car or truck that has an enormous amount of windows all around it. That's certainly as private as your bathroom at home, right?


Your car is private property operated on public roads. When you step out of your car, you are now in public. Why do you think cops either need to be able to see drugs in the car to search without a warrant or permission from the owner or operator of the car?

So when they set up "bird dogs" on the corner for the sole purpose to root out nasty seat belt law violators, it is a sad state we live it. If they need money that bad, why don't they just put a toll on the road.

Lets be clear here, this doesn't mean shit about public safety or the cops would simply tell the people to put their seat belts on. They wouldn't charge a tax for getting caught.



Yes, if "the word to the wise" sufficed it would be a non-issue. But since seat belts have been mandatory in cars since 1964 (IIRC) and seat belt laws are getting to be appx 20 years old, I guess some aren't just catching the subtle hints.


The cops can't pop your trunk and look inside without permission or probable cause. That's the point, your car is private property.

Anyway, to the guy who said it costs money to run this stuff, just look at WobblinGoblin's post, you will get your answer there.

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:46:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By shotar:
I know that it costs more to enforce these laws than is generated for any municipality by enforcement.

You cry tax collection, I say public safety enforcement.


Shotar, my internet friend, I have heard you (and a couple of others) say this on more than one occasion. I question whether your claim is correct:

1. LEOs have a work schedule that is similiar to most of the rest of us. They get paid hourly. They work between 40-50hrs. per week. That much is true, correct?

2. If said LEOs sat behind a desk for those 40-50hrs. and simply answered phones, they'd get paid for their time just as much as an LEO who pulled traffic duty for those same 40-50hrs., correct?

3. In those 40-50hrs., the desk-bound LEO would've generated $0.00 for the agency/municipality he worked in, correct?

4. Let's say the traffic-duty LEO wrote 20 tickets in those same 40-50hrs. and the revenue totalled $1,500.00 (that was eventually paid).

Seems to me, every LEO is getting paid regardless of the duty he is pulling at the time. When they can write tickets and generate revenue through them, that is all a plus. Now, I know you will probably then bring up the fact that I shouldn't forget that "the officer has to go to traffic court for many of those tickets," but let's say he spent an entire week's worth of time at the courthouse, big deal, he was getting paid whether he sat behind a desk, pulled traffic duty, or sat in court all day. The difference is he simply didn't get to write more tickets that day. Oh well, there's always the next day for revenue-generation, right?

If you should bring up the amount of money the "criminal justice system" spends on traffic tickets, the same applies there, too. Let's say in one week, the courts were packed full, and the next week they were empty, the judge and prosecutors are still getting paid no matter what.

However, we all know our courts will never be empty, don't we. The "system" simply wouldn't allow it.



In most cases, the LEO, as stated is on straight time. These cases cited, then have to be processed, an additional expense of time and manpower. Add in a 4 hour overtime callback for court, lets say $75, now factor in the cost of fuel, wear and tear on the vehicle, actual cost of the paperwork, postage, in some cases incarceration, and in general traffic enforcement is a money loser. In addition, most counties or townships get to keep exactly none of the money, while being burdened with the cost. Some cities do get to keep some of it, but the bulk still goes to the state. If one really wanted to generate revenue as the goal and end result it would be far more efficient to jack up the price of licenseplates like California tried. Now, there might be some profit if one could write 20 tickets per hour, but the average is probably more like 2 to 4 tickets per shift, and thats while they are not busy doing other things.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top