State Troopers hold ticket writing competition for pizza prize

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
 


Seems to work alright for fire departments.

They even arrive on scene faster.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Are you smart enough to see how it's worlds different between are fireman and police officer? Both dangerous, but one has situations with violence.

Tell me you not so smarmy to put those blinders on.




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by intrepid
 


That line of thinking is operating under the assumption that a posted speed limit creates safety.

One only has to look at the statistics of the Autobahn to see that this is not necessarily true.

It's easy to argue that police enforcement "makes us safe" because it is seen as an obvious truth on one side and fear keeps any thought or study of the other side from ever happening.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



enforcement doesn't make us safe. Everyone traveling at a safe rate of speed makes us safe.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Reply to post by intrepid
 


Fatal crashes occur on roads posted 10 and 25 mph too.

Safe driving is up to the driver. A posted limit is meaningless.

Likewise is the enforcement. Since if we consider this "blitz" being uncharacteristic of police enforcement and the two posts above stating officer discretion has them looking the other way most of the time.

Which means they are not there enforcing every limit on every road 24/7.

So then why aren't there more people flying 150mph wrapping themselves around trees?

Because if left to their own devices people opt to survive and survival means not behavig recklessly.

I can point to several roads which have posted limits that are far above what is realistically safe. Everyone traveling those roads go much slower. Should they all be stopped and ticketed? Should they intentionally increase to unsafe speeds to meet the posted limit?

Afterall, the almighty posted limit is the safest speed to travel at, right?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Reply to post by MattNC
 


So because the encounter may be violent the employee can't be volunteer?

That doesn't make sense.

Unless all that downtime doing nothing for days or weeks and racking up overtime directing traffic on Easter Sunday is a benefit of the job for risking a violent encounter once in a blue moon.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


Which means they are not there enforcing every limit on every road 24/7.


Afterall, the almighty posted limit is the safest speed to travel at, right?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



So let's get non-human speed monitoring... cameras, satellites, boxes in cars, speed governor devices, ...

Oh wait.... or do you want to be able to break the law when you feel like it so long as you deem it "OK"?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
 


So because the encounter may be violent the employee can't be volunteer?

That doesn't make sense.

Unless all that downtime doing nothing for days or weeks and racking up overtime directing traffic on Easter Sunday is a benefit of the job for risking a violent encounter once in a blue moon.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



So how are you going to judge how many "on call" are just enough? Who is responsible when there's not enough to contain a situation?

you think you'll get a lot of qualified officers who are willing to engage violence for free? When are YOU going to volunteer?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Reply to post by MattNC
 


Where does the assumption I just want to break the law come from? This is another reason an adult conversation can't take place regarding this signage society. Any suggesting that people may be able to behave themselves is met with "you just want to get away with X" whatever X may be.

Electronic devices could actually improve on the "safety" claim enforcement makes. Disable a vehicle when an unsafe speed is reached. Assuming posted speeds are in fact measures of safety. As my post above points outthis is not necessarily true however.

Electronic monitoring may also be used to dispel the myth of safety in that real-time enforcement isn't likely. Not that it is likey now given how many cars there are compared to how many cops there are compared further to how many cops are actualy out ticketing.

So even without the real-time enforcement revenue can be generated in the absence of police through reporting of electronic devices.

Conceddingto such an approach all but nullifies the safety aspect.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Reply to post by MattNC
 


Taking my own safety seriously is enough for me. I'm not interested in pro-active harassment or regulating the personal choices people make with their own property and their own lives.

Even now police cannot prevent any crime. They respond after the crime has been committed. So as it stands taking ones own safety seriously is already doing more than even 100 million officers can do.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
 


Where does the assumption I just want to break the law come from? This is another reason an adult conversation can't take place regarding this signage society. Any suggesting that people may be able to behave themselves is met with "you just want to get away with X" whatever X may be.

Electronic devices could actually improve on the "safety" claim enforcement makes. Disable a vehicle when an unsafe speed is reached. Assuming posted speeds are in fact measures of safety. As my post above points outthis is not necessarily true however.

Electronic monitoring may also be used to dispel the myth of safety in that real-time enforcement isn't likely. Not that it is likey now given how many cars there are compared to how many cops there are compared further to how many cops are actualy out ticketing.

So even without the real-time enforcement revenue can be generated in the absence of police through reporting of electronic devices.

Conceddingto such an approach all but nullifies the safety aspect.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



So you're cool with remote monitoring 24/7 and are willing to pay up when you violate the posted speed?
edit on 30-3-2012 by MattNC because: grammar
edit on 30-3-2012 by MattNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
 


Taking my own safety seriously is enough for me. I'm not interested in pro-active harassment or regulating the personal choices people make with their own property and their own lives.

Even now police cannot prevent any crime. They respond after the crime has been committed. So as it stands taking ones own safety seriously is already doing more than even 100 million officers can do.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Kinda like the Zimmerman guy in Florida?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Reply to post by MattNC
 


If it means saving money overall by releasing officers, selling off squad cars, closing departments and some form of recourse were made available given the fallibility of machines then sure.

Monitor my car and send me a bill if my cruise control ever lies to me.

Think of all the time and money taxpayers could save by replacing so many jobs with a spreadsheet and envelopes.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Reply to post by MattNC
 


He, ironically enough, was behaving as cops do. Proactively investigating and seeking out trouble.

Not what one concerned with their safety and security does.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
 


He, ironically enough, was behaving as cops do. Proactively investigating and seeking out trouble.

Not what one concerned with their safety and security does.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



priceless. So when someone considers you the threat and starts taking the law into their own hands, you don't want any cops helping you?

You should propose we do the volunteer-only police force in a metropolitan area your family frequents.

You'll see why you're not the guy in charge.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
priceless. So when someone considers you the threat and starts taking the law into their own hands, you don't want any cops helping you?


Why would anyone consider me a threat?

If I am directly violating someones property, life or liberty than I am definitely a threat.

If some lunatic sees me out and fixates on me and starts delusionaly building me up as a threat then that person, should he act, is a threat to me where I must defend myself. Otherwise just being a nut is not a threat to me. I think you're confusing an actual violation of life, liberty or property with some fantasy pre-crime like conspiracy or intent.


You should propose we do the volunteer-only police force in a metropolitan area your family frequents.


Sure, why not? I've held the notion for decades that a cure to police corruption, abuses, and ineptitude would be universal deputization. Make people cone to terms with the reality of life in a free society. No one will save you but yourself. Unless we all have personal bodyguards assigned to us.


You'll see why you're not the guy in charge.


I dont know what you mean by that. I have no desire to be "in charge" of anything or anyone.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Pizza?.... REALLY?? PIZZA???

jesus, at least make it doughnuts or something...

but seriously: that's just sickening. truly sickening.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
 


Where does the assumption I just want to break the law come from? This is another reason an adult conversation can't take place regarding this signage society. Any suggesting that people may be able to behave themselves is met with "you just want to get away with X" whatever X may be.

Electronic devices could actually improve on the "safety" claim enforcement makes. Disable a vehicle when an unsafe speed is reached. Assuming posted speeds are in fact measures of safety. As my post above points outthis is not necessarily true however.

Electronic monitoring may also be used to dispel the myth of safety in that real-time enforcement isn't likely. Not that it is likey now given how many cars there are compared to how many cops there are compared further to how many cops are actualy out ticketing.

So even without the real-time enforcement revenue can be generated in the absence of police through reporting of electronic devices.

Conceddingto such an approach all but nullifies the safety aspect.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



So you're cool with remote monitoring 24/7 and are willing to pay up when you violate the posted speed?
edit on 30-3-2012 by MattNC because: grammar
edit on 30-3-2012 by MattNC because: (no reason given)


This is already being done all over the place....ever heard of the red light cameras and speed trap camera ticketing? Ever heard of ShotSpotter? ShotSpotter

There are cameras and multiple voice recorders always running when police are involved, some inside/outside the car and a couple on their person. Monitoring of traffic is done daily....look up traffic cameras. All of this is already done. The police set up these speed trap operations SOLELY to write tickets for state/local revenue generation. Are you telling me they are doing it to keep people safe? If so then why aren't they doing this DAILY? Because they too are human and human nature is to take the path of least resistance which they seem to be doing the rest of the year and playing catch up on speed trap days.

I do follow speed limits and rules for the most part. I almost always set my cruise control when possible and set it for the speed limit. Fact of the matter at hand here is that the officers in this story as well as in numerous other states are LAZY and LACKADAISICAL about the laws themselves so they themselves should hold a lot of the responsibility for citizens that speed since they do nothing to help teach them not to the rest of the year.

It's as simple and almost the same as teaching your child not to do something. You teach them until they learn it, not let them get away with it for 300 days a year then suddenly punish them for it. Again....ridiculous and downright angering.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by intrepid
 


Fatal crashes occur on roads posted 10 and 25 mph too.


Why? Because someone wasn't driving at the posted speed.


Safe driving is up to the driver. A posted limit is meaningless.


But the threat of a ticket or suspension keeps the massive majority from driving carelessly. Even if the limit is 10 or 25 mph.



Which means they are not there enforcing every limit on every road 24/7.


You do know that policing traffic is only one part of their job, right?


So then why aren't there more people flying 150mph wrapping themselves around trees?


Because of the threat of a ticket or suspension.


Because if left to their own devices people opt to survive and survival means not behavig recklessly.


I don't know about you but I would love to drive faster. I don't though because I value my license. And realistically most people are the same.


I can point to several roads which have posted limits that are far above what is realistically safe. Everyone traveling those roads go much slower. Should they all be stopped and ticketed? Should they intentionally increase to unsafe speeds to meet the posted limit?


The posted speed is the MAXIMUM. If you aren't a good driver drive slower by all means. That's just ridiculous.


Afterall, the almighty posted limit is the safest speed to travel at, right?


Depends on several factors. Driver ability. Road condition to name a couple. If you get into a wreck by doing the maximum on icy roads, god forbid you kill someone, the cops and your insurance company aren't going to be sympathetic to your carelessness.

Speed limits make roads safer. Enforcing the limits do the same.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by intrepid
 


That line of thinking is operating under the assumption that a posted speed limit creates safety.


It does. That's why you will see speed limits change occasionally. The Autobahn? Do a Google image search and you can see that no one could possibly survive the wrecks that you'll see there.


Actually your Autobahn post is incorrect....




Accident Rates

Despite the prevailing high speeds, the accident, injury and death rates on the Autobahn are remarkably low. The Autobahn carries about a third of all Germany's traffic, but injury accidents on the Autobahn account for only 6% of such accidents nationwide and less than 12% of all traffic fatalities were the result of Autobahn crashes (2009). In fact, the annual fatality rate (2.7 per billion km in 2009) is consistently lower than that of most other superhighway systems, including the US Interstates (4.5 in 2009). Furthermore, a 2005 study by the German government found that Autobahn sections without speed limits had the same accident rate as those with speed limits.


The Autobahn



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Speed limits were set to limit gas consumption. en.wikipedia.org...

Statistically they dont make anyone safer. www.motorists.org...

You wanting to drive fast is you being reckless. Most people however are not.

Assuming of course that you are being sincere and not just trumpeting up some "need for speed" nonsense for the sake of argument.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


No, it wasn't incorrect. I was not debating the accident rate. I said "look at those crashes. No one survived that."





top topics
 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join