Click It or Ticket Insanity

[lovehamr]

Originally Posted by Steve Cassani

Ron,

The company that supplied the cameras may have an open-ended contract with the city or county, calling for a percentage of the revenue generated through use of the camera. A proposal to introduce cameras at intersections in the city of Billings included a 'fee' of twenty percent. The city was ready to accept the proposal - the company picks up the costs for intallation and maintenance - until the state legislature voted against their use anywhere in Montana. Proponents saw a way to increase effectiveness (and revenue) with no change in staffing; opponents argued law enforcement could not be responsible when enacted at a distance.

Yup. THAT is revenue generation. BTW, to all the guys who believe that the cops are out there to support themselves with ticket revenue; the only program that I personally know of that directly supports LE in the enforcement role are drug seizures and that's only support not saleries. All the other monies go into the municipality's general fund. In other words into a pot where the polititions control of it. Again, if you want different laws or laws enforced in a different way then get involved, communicate in your community and above all be involved in the political process and VOTE for the leader whom you want to have the purse strings. You might be surprised at how many cops are with you.

Steve

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by Steve Cassani

Ron,

The company that supplied the cameras may have an open-ended contract with the city or county, calling for a percentage of the revenue generated through use of the camera. A proposal to introduce cameras at intersections in the city of Billings included a 'fee' of twenty percent. The city was ready to accept the proposal - the company picks up the costs for intallation and maintenance - until the state legislature voted against their use anywhere in Montana. Proponents saw a way to increase effectiveness (and revenue) with no change in staffing; opponents argued law enforcement could not be responsible when enacted at a distance.

In nearly all cases, red light cameras are a revenue sharing deal between a city or county and the camera vendor. I read an article a while back that said that it's becoming common place for cities to pull the plug on the red light cameras because they've done their job...people have become conditioned and they stop running red lights. I guess they just need to keep the little strobe /flash up to keep people on their toes.

Click or ticket. There's no argument...it takes two seconds to put your seat belt on. Do you drive your Cobra without a seat belt on??

[Ron61]

Steve,

Sharing the revenue would be far to much intelligence for this area. When they signed the contract they had it worded so the camera supplier got all of it until it went above a set level each month which was as much as they would normally get in ticket revenue in about 8 months. Real brilliance on the part of the city council. Their solution was to either try to re-negotiate the contract so they got a percentage of it or have the fines raised so high that it wouldn't take so many to reach the set level. Right now both the difference in fines if a patrolman issues the ticket or a camera catches it and the contract are in a state of law suites. The city threatened to have them taken out but they still have to pay the amount that would have been collected up to the agreed total. And since there is such a huge difference in a ticket written by a policeman and the camera tickets that is another big fight. This city council can't do anything that doesn't wind up in court it seems. Doesn't really bother me as driving here is worse than in San Francisco and I have always worn seat belts and stopped at lights and signs.

Ron

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Got the Bug

Click or ticket. There's no argument...it takes two seconds to put your seat belt on. Do you drive your Cobra without a seat belt on??

+1. Seat belts save lives. Also, as parents, we set examples for our kids as well. Our kids copy virtually everything we do. If we don't care to put on our seat belt, then our kids won't bother either.

Or you can be a celebrity and drive with them on your lap in the front seat unrestrained.

Further, I was never much a red light runner, but the cameras are doing their job.

People are complaining about too many police officers out there? How about Oakland, CA where they can't hire enough? Law enforcement have a very difficult job, and I for one admire them for the job I wouldn't want to do.

"Don't do the crime , if you can't do the time." Who loves ya baby?

[cdog]

WAY too many police out around here doing nothing but writing traffic tickets. This is NOT ****ing Nazi Germany, we don't need this.

Would having a cop on every corner watching everyone reduce street crime? Sure... but at what cost?

I have a Valentine One and it is ALWAYS going off in the surrounding towns. There are police doing radar and laser everywhere. 10x worse than 2 years ago. We don't need that, and we don't want it.

As for seatbelt tickets, **** them. I'll wear my seatbelt IF I choose to and not before. They'll run out of tickets before most of us on here run out of money....

[cobrakidz]

With this seat belt law there is no grey area, it's balck and white-no seat belt=ticket. The police may be trying to create revenue BUT if you follow the rules you don't need to worry.

[cdog]

Originally Posted by cobrakidz

With this seat belt law there is no grey area, it's balck and white-no seat belt=ticket. The police may be trying to create revenue BUT if you follow the rules you don't need to worry.

All these quotes like "Just follow the rules and you'll be fine" and "Just do what the law says" are misguided...

I'll bet someone told George Washington "Just give up the guns and powder, that's the rules, best do it."

I'll bet someone told the Jews "Just move to the ghetto, follow the rules, we'll all be fine."

To hell with following the rules.

The questions we should be asking are: IS THE GOVERMENT TOO INVASIVE?

DO THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT MY PERSONAL FREEDOMS?

Etc. If you "rules" guys want to be sheep, go ahead, but count me out....

[Ronbo]

Problem is with tough times crime goes up. Burglaries, robberies will increase and when we need them the most the police will be busy taking money from your wallet while the thieves will be cleaning out your house.

The response time for your home alarm (if you have one) should be up to about a week, if at all.

[Dangerous Doug]

You guys have got to be kidding...

Officer X is going to pull somebody over to ticket them for not having their seat belt on instead of responding to your 911 call?

Get serious...

DD

[Great Asp]

Originally Posted by Dangerous Doug

You guys have got to be kidding...

Officer X is going to pull somebody over to ticket them for not having their seat belt on instead of responding to your 911 call?

Get serious...

DD

What will the LEO do if he is writing the ticket and a 911 call comes across?

Again, it's another great idea (law) gone wrong. Like the poster above that drove for years with no ticket, and then "Comando Cop" see's him move his car without a seat belt and doesn't let him go with a warning? That's just meeting goals on his part, and if he is looking at John Doe's seatbelt compliance, then the LEO is not looking at other crime.

E

[lovehamr]

Originally Posted by Great Asp

What will the LEO do if he is writing the ticket and a 911 call comes across?

Without exception he'll drop what he's doing and rush to save your butt from whatever sheite you've gotten yourself into. That's what he'll do.

Originally Posted by Great Asp

Again, it's another great idea (law) gone wrong. Like the poster above that drove for years with no ticket, and then "Comando Cop" see's him move his car without a seat belt and doesn't let him go with a warning? That's just meeting goals on his part, and if he is looking at John Doe's seatbelt compliance, then the LEO is not looking at other crime.

What other crime are you referring to? The 911 call? I think we covered that. And stop whining about warnings, if it doesn't go your way then buck-up, have a little dignity, and pay for your transgression. Other than female dogging(it wouldn't let me write the other word) and cussing, nothing will get you a ticket faster that whining.

Steve
P.S. "Comando Cop" should have 2 m's. If you're gonna get insulting at least spell it right.

[Ron61]

To the above who have posted in favor of seat belts I could not agree more. In fact back in the early 60s I bought a 62 Ford and they came with no seat belts. I went and bought a lap belt which was all that could be installed due to the way the body was made and had them put in the front and back seats. When I had my Cobra, even though I was told that as long as the shoulder belts were out of sight and I had the lap belt fastened that was ok, I still wore the shoulder belts when driving it, but not the crotch belt. If I get in my car and start it I feel as if I have left my pants off until I get the seat belt fastened, even in my driveway.
As for tickets, I once got one for doing 42 in a 40 zone and that kind of ticked me off as it was 3 AM and the cop and I were the only ones on the street and it was a divided 4 lane that was straight for 1 mile. In fact they called it Miracle Mile. I had just taken some circuit boards to the buss station to ship back to the labs and the cop wanted to know why I was out at that time of night. I was polite and told him that I worked for Bell Labs and had been working on the Enterprise computer and had some circuit packs that had to be in Sacramento the next morning to be on a plane back East. He said he didn't know what I was talking about and thought that I was lying and wanted to search my car. I politely told him no, that if he wanted to search it to get a warrant. So he wrote me the ticket for the 42 in a 40 zone which the judge threw out. But at no time was he nasty about it and I figured I had gotten away with speeding before and this just kind of evened the score. I saw that same cop several times after that and he would wave at me.

Ron

[RedEsprit]

I don't think that anyone will argue that using a seatbelt can save your life. But to save lives,so would getting every motorcycle off the road not to mention limiting the speed limit to 45 and restricting drivers licenses to those under 70. Anyone using a cell phone in a vehicle should clearly be incarcerated for at least a year. And while we're at it, eliminate all these ridiculous little death trap Smart cars and any other vehicle under 4,000 lbs. Can you possible justify driving vehicles without bumpers? OOPS!, that's us. We could also pass a law that allows police to issue 2 tickets for anyone drinking a coke in the car...one for driving impaired and one for drinking a drink with sugar in it. If you can tax it...you certainly can fine it.

I always use a seatbelt no matter which car I drive. Since I harm no one but myself if I don't, however, the idea that its use is mandated and provides an opportunity for a dozen police to leap from behind rocks, shrubs, and trees acting like brown shirts to dole our fines is absurd. No question it is the law and they are only doing their job if they happen to see you driving without one. But hiding at the entrance to a mall and giving out tickets on a wholesale basis before you even get out on the road? C'mon!! The seatbelt law is there to enhance revenue and always was. Opportunistic use of that law in this economy is as un-American as Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi.

[Ron61]

Actually just what is the legality of giving a ticket for anything in a mall parking lot? The big ones around here are owned and kept up by the malls and the city or county has no authority to police them in my opinion. Yet I have seen local police parked in the mall parking lots watching people come and go and stopping them in the lot for everything from a brake light being out to no seat belt fastened.
One, the police force is so depleted with lay offs that I would think they would be needed to fight the murders, rapes, and such more than to watch parking lots in hopes of getting to give a ticket. Two I don't believe it is legal for them to do that unless the mall would request their presence because of problem drivers.
I know the cop that was going to give me a ticket for speed exhibition in my own driveway had to drop it when I told him I was on my property which was posted and he had no business coming up into my driveway because I burned about a foot of rubber. I later called the police station and talked to the day commander and he told me that what I did on my property was my business and the officer should have stayed off and just driven on by. And I wasn't trying to agitate him. I had just had a new Posi unit installed and wanted to see how it worked.

Ron

[SPF2245]

Of the last dozen or so fatal traffic accidents I've worked, I'd have to say that most of the accidents were very survivable...'cept either the driver or passenger was ejected due to not wearing a seat belt (by this, I mean other occupants in the vehicle survived with no major injury because of wearing their belt). NOTHING sucks worse in my job then having to notify a family of a fatal accident which the death of a family member was preventable. I hate telling people the other 2-4 people in the car are fine, but their loved one didn't wear a belt and was ejected and killed.
As for generating revenue, not all jurisdictions have the high costs attached to the tickets. If I look at the break down, my agency gets about $10 per ticket on a seat belt violation. When you look at the cost of me doing the stop...I doubt we're making more then a couple dollars. But, the cost of investigating a fatal vs a simple property damage or injury accident is close to 20x the cost to investigating agency (6-10 officers on scene, coroner, autopsy, death investigation, accident investigation, ect), and the public loves to see their roadway shut down for 3-6 hours. So there is my .02.

[Silverback51]

For me it's a non-issue. I always buckle up my seat belts.

In fact it's such a habit I find myself sometimes doing it just to move a car in the driveway.

[Tommy]

In this discussion, I'm on the side of those who blame politicians who get the cooperation of police whose budgets are determined by those same politicians. Here's an example that I observed at a small town city council meeting. It did not involve the police but it illustrates how politicians think.

A private company appeared before the city council with a proposal. The company argued that it costs the city government money every time it sends fire and police to the scene of an auto accident. The company said if the city would pass an approriate ordinance, it would oversee a program to bill the insurance companies of parties involved in auto accidents $150. The company would then share one third of its revenues with the city. The councilmen licked their chops at the prospect of having more money to spend without having to do anything, but were concerned that citizens would object to having to pay the city for having been in an accident. The company assured the council that it would not demand payment from individuals. So if a person had no insurance, or it its insurance company refused to pay, the company would write of the debt. The councilmen seemed happy with that answer.

When it came time for public comment, I spoke. I argued that it would not be right to apply selective enforcement of the ordinance only to those whose insurance companies voluntarily paid the fee. Thus, they could not avoid aggravating some citizens. Further, the fees paid by the insurance companies would ultimately come back as higher premiums paid by their customers. It was just a bad idea, I argued. The council liked the company's proposal and went to work passing the ordinance. I told them I would tell everyone I knew to advise their insurance companies not to pay.

[Dangerous Doug]

No doubt all of us at some time or another have had an experience with an overzealous peace officer. However, my experience is that the officers with the attitude are not the norm, and that most are reasonable---and they are usually correct.

Some on this thread are sounding a bit "paranoid". Socialism and Nazi Germany? You've got to be kidding. Maybe it's time for you to sell the Cobra and head for the hills to where you stashed all of those gold coins and Top Ramen prior to New Year's Eve, 1999 when you thought the civilized world was going to come to an end...

Socialism and Nazi Germany! Get some world perspective!
DD

[Russ Dickey]

I'm with RedEsprit on this one. I'm a proponent of seat belts and ALWAYS use them, no matter what. However, I am an opponent of seat belt laws. They are 100% purely for the generation of revenue, enforced under the guise of "we're helping to save lives." Gimme an f'ing break.

The government has no place in creating laws like this (or helmet laws, or smoking bans, etc). These are personal freedom issues where if you choose not to wear one, so be it. What should happen is that the laws all go away, and the insurance companies simply start refusing to pay for your injuries should you be hurt or killed in an accident where you didn't have one on.

Please stop thinking it's OK for the government to regulate issues of personal responsibility.

[lnfletcher]

I purchase my own health insurance. I drive responsibly. Why bother someone that cannot possibly hurt anyone else but themselves?
"Seatbelts save lives." I'll bet wearing helments in your SUV would too, so why don't they just make that a law?
"Speed Kills and waist gas." So why don't they just set the maximum speed to 5 MPH and no one would get hurt!
The point is that crap happens! We are all adults and some of this is just crazy. My daughter (who always wears her belt) was stopped over the weekend and the officer said she wasn't wearing her seat belt which she clearly was. His word against her's. I wear mine always but think it is a stupid law.