PIGS
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by NYCS2,Aug 8 2006, 10:48 AM
Why do you guys keep forgetting that a infraction is being committed which is what the ticket is being issued for? 
Every driver makes a technical infraction every time they get behind the wheel, this incentivises nailing them for something ridiculous, like weaving in a lane. Unless your a robot your tracking isn't going to be perfect. i would arguee that even robots can't track as well as the law mandates.
The big reason, it's a bribe.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by DiamondDave2005,Aug 8 2006, 09:00 PM
Yeah? I'd welcome it! It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than being jacked for $1000 + insurance surcharges because some asshole NJ trooper didn't get his Wheaties one morning. Hell, the most they'd get out of my wallet is a hundred bucks!
I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but if revenue enhancement had anything to do with safety, there are two very simple solutions:
1) Don't sell cars in NJ that go over 65mph. Easily done by the manufacturers. If a car is caught with a software hack it gets confiscated and crushed.
OR
2) Instead of stalking people in unmarked cars or hiding in the bushes, put the cops in the middle lane of the NJ Turnpike at rush hour with lights on doing 65mph.
Of course it's not about safety, is it? It's about the millions of dollars they rake in, and all the jobs that go along with the ticket industry. Speed limits on highways are about money, and nothing else.
I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but if revenue enhancement had anything to do with safety, there are two very simple solutions:
1) Don't sell cars in NJ that go over 65mph. Easily done by the manufacturers. If a car is caught with a software hack it gets confiscated and crushed.
OR
2) Instead of stalking people in unmarked cars or hiding in the bushes, put the cops in the middle lane of the NJ Turnpike at rush hour with lights on doing 65mph.
Of course it's not about safety, is it? It's about the millions of dollars they rake in, and all the jobs that go along with the ticket industry. Speed limits on highways are about money, and nothing else.
They were going to hit the beltway and travel at the speed limit 55mph the whole way around and around and around fill up and do it again and again the whole day taking up all lanes of traffic. This would've caused a mess but with everyone driving 55 we could see just how "Safe" it is.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Lets not forget that most states have a basic speed law that read something like.. If the driver of the vehicle can prove his speed was reasonable and prudent based on the situation at hand he's free to travel at that speed.
Its different for all states but basically everyone has some clause like this. My argument is that my car handles better stops faster and is less of a danger due to weight to other drivers than a 18 wheeler and suv.
So if I could prove that at say 15 mph faster than the speed limit I can stop manuver and be a safer vehicle than the mean I should be allowed to travel at that speed.
Its different for all states but basically everyone has some clause like this. My argument is that my car handles better stops faster and is less of a danger due to weight to other drivers than a 18 wheeler and suv.
So if I could prove that at say 15 mph faster than the speed limit I can stop manuver and be a safer vehicle than the mean I should be allowed to travel at that speed.
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 3
From: Los Angeles, Miami
Originally Posted by soul_fly,Aug 9 2006, 10:34 AM
the point is that it's the principle. it's one thing to be rewarded for excellent job performance, but it's another thing to capitalize off the misfortunes of other people. especially since issuing tickets is such a subjective thing. the police are supposed to protect and serve. writing an excess amount of speeding tickets for personal gain is a conflict of interest no matter how minute the gain is.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by mav,Aug 9 2006, 12:20 PM
I see your point of view. I'm speaking solely of job performance and unfortunately this $10 bonus is based on misfortunes of others.
If not, you're just rationalizing
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
From: houston
Originally Posted by saluki9,Aug 9 2006, 02:18 PM
Do you consider it a "misfortune" when a mugger is arrested?
If not, you're just rationalizing
If not, you're just rationalizing
now how are you gonna beat that in court? it's basically his word against yours. i always thought that the burden of proof ALWAYS lied on the prosecution. to me, that basically an open and shut case...NOT GUILTY, too bad i'm an idealist to a fault.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by soul_fly,Aug 9 2006, 02:36 PM
apples and oranges. when an apparent "mugging" takes place there are at least three people involved: the cop, the victim, and the mugger. probably even a lot of tangible evidence. point is, rarely do cops just arbitrarely accuse someone of robbery based on a instinct, a gut feeling, or their righteous opinion--without substantial evidence. however they do that for speeding in texas, it's called pacing. if a cop "paces" you for however long it's enough to warrant a ticket.
now how are you gonna beat that in court? it's basically his word against yours. i always thought that the burden of proof ALWAYS lied on the prosecution. to me, that basically an open and shut case...NOT GUILTY, too bad i'm an idealist to a fault.
now how are you gonna beat that in court? it's basically his word against yours. i always thought that the burden of proof ALWAYS lied on the prosecution. to me, that basically an open and shut case...NOT GUILTY, too bad i'm an idealist to a fault.
My point (which you made for me perfectly) is that when you have decided that it's ok the break some laws and not others then you are rationalizing your actions.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
From: houston
Originally Posted by saluki9,Aug 9 2006, 04:08 PM
Then have the law changed.
My point (which you made for me perfectly) is that when you have decided that it's ok the break some laws and not others then you are rationalizing your actions.
My point (which you made for me perfectly) is that when you have decided that it's ok the break some laws and not others then you are rationalizing your actions.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by saluki9,Aug 9 2006, 06:08 PM
Then have the law changed.
My point (which you made for me perfectly) is that when you have decided that it's ok the break some laws and not others then you are rationalizing your actions.
My point (which you made for me perfectly) is that when you have decided that it's ok the break some laws and not others then you are rationalizing your actions.
A law enforcer has to be held to an extreme high standard.
He must do his job based on evidence and reality not incentives.
You wouldn't want him to bypass the process just to get another score.
He needs to be methodical and ethical all the way with nothing to bias his actions.
Rather the offence was legitimate or not isn't relevant.
He must come to his conclusions without any outside influences or pressure. Not even a penny.