Click It or Ticket Insanity

[Dangerous Doug]

Let me get this straight... You guys are complaining because the law is being enforced?

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.

I actually appreciate highway patrol and troopers and what they do. I've nearly been nailed by soccer Mom's running red lights while talking on their cell phones, and nearly rear-ended by twenty-somethings texting while driving (or, more recently, by a little grey-haired lady in a Subaru on Hwy 17...) These people, I hope, will get caught and their behavior (hopefully) will be modified.

A stroll through a junk yard, observing the spider-web shaped cracks in windshield glass should be enough to convince someone to put their friggin' seat belt on. Read here on ClubCobra about a guy that wrecked his Cobra (and I think, killed) because his seat-belt was bolted into the fiberglass floorpan instead of into the frame, and the fiberglass ripped out with him flying (to his death) in his seat.

I don't know. Put the seatbelt on, hang up the cell phone, stop texting, and don't drink and drive. Speed at your own risk (financial or otherwise), and don't put anybody ELSE at risk.

Just a few thoughts...
DD

[Great Asp]

Originally Posted by Dangerous Doug

Let me get this straight... You guys are complaining because the law is being enforced?
DD

I think your missing the point. The laws are being written to appease lobbyists (MADD, Insurance companies, etc...) and we are paying for "over enforcement" of these stupid laws. Have you heard "don't murder, or your freedom won't go further"? Of course not, because murder does not generate money.

There must be something to this click-it or ticket program generating dollars for the states.

I always put my seatbelt on, I am sick of being threatened if I do not have it on.

E

[427sharpe]

And again, if it's all about 'saving lives'..why the dichotomy with motorcycles?
I can ride without a shirt or helmet, wearing shorts and flip flops and that is ok? Where the rush to protect me from myself?
The government which governs least governs best.

[Powershift1038]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

And again, if it's all about 'saving lives'..why the dichotomy with motorcycles?
I can ride without a shirt or helmet, wearing shorts and flip flops and that is ok? Where the rush to protect me from myself?
The government which governs least governs best.

Yes, but should you crash your bike without wearing a shirt or helmet, while wearing shorts and flip flops, you would have to accept the responsibility for your major injuries which could have been prevented. Just as those who choose to ignore a simple seat belt law have to accept their fines.

I'm sure this issue could be debated for 10 more pages. But again.. wear you seat belt to help protect your own life, and prevent getting a ticket. Simple as that.

[427sharpe]

Originally Posted by Powershift1038

Yes, but should you crash your bike without wearing a shirt or helmet, while wearing shorts and flip flops, you would have to accept the responsibility for your major injuries which could have been prevented. Just as those who choose to ignore a simple seat belt law have to accept their fines.

I'm sure this issue could be debated for 10 more pages. But again.. wear you seat belt to help protect your own life, and prevent getting a ticket. Simple as that.

I guess I did not state my point clearly enough. IF the seat belt laws are all about saving lives (as opposed to revenue generation/powerful lobby manipulation) why are the laws on motorcycles so lax? Clearly a motorcycle presents a greater danger (to operator) in case of accident, yes? And if so the laws for safety should be tighter, should they not?
And if a collision occurs (regardless of vehicle) I accept what happens so how does the state get to mandate what is good for me? This to me (a religious seat belt user, btw) is another example of nitwit legislatures being manipulated into performing work for a powerful lobby (insurance). It is no more about 'saving lives' than the 55 mph speed limit was/is. In my view, what I do (and the risks I accept) are my responsibility, not the states. And finally, I believe the red light cameras showcase this clearly! Here in Texas, the cities are raising he// because revenue from the cameras has been dropping drastically, and some of the contracts prohibit moving them w/o substantial fees. If it were all about safety, the municipalities should be overjoyed that the cameras did their stated purpose...and people became safer drivers. Instead...the mantra goes lets move them to make more money.

[RedEsprit]

I support most law-enforcement activities. I live in a nice house filled with lots of stuff, and the various police forces serve as an instrument that helps maintain this happy status quo. And the police are routinely occupied with much less pleasant tasks than nabbing the occasional burglar. Law enforcement often intersects with tragic and dangerous circumstances, and I have nothing but respect and appreciation for those who perform it.

Then I hear a story such as the one coming out of Redford Township, a suburb on Detroit’s northwest side. In a transparently obvious scheme to raise cash, the township has instituted a policy in which Redford police officers will receive an hour of overtime pay for every two tickets they write. For example, if an officer is working overtime and writes eight tickets in two hours, he or she gets paid for four hours of overtime at $41 per hour. Apparently, Redford Township never got the secret nationwide memo urging all governmental agencies to categorically deny any policy even hinting at ticket quotas.

Given such financial encouragement, what incentive is there for Redford police to enforce any laws other than traffic offenses? Furthermore, they are now motivated to write the easiest, most expedient tickets to maximize their personal incomes.

You can imagine this conversation in a Redford patrol car. “Say, Joe, that blue sedan has crossed the center line and nearly sideswiped a car in the last quarter-mile. He’s gotta be drunk. Let’s check it out.”

“Are you nuts!” says his partner. “The sobriety test will take forever, and if we have to haul him in for a blood test, the rest of our shift is shot. Let’s go set up a radar trap near that reduced-speed zone that starts three miles before the road construction, and we’ll write six tickets in the next hour.”

This notion of making profit centers out of law-enforcement activities is making its way across the nation. Here in Ann Arbor, we’ve watched the city council discuss the hiring of new officers based on adding revenue to the city’s coffers rather than on any increases in crime or accident rates. The only factor considered was whether the net ticket profits generated by the extra cops would exceed their cost in salary, benefits, and overhead.

Revenue enhncement...plain and simple. Its indefensible in today's economic climate.