Just another speeding ticket thread

[The Pastor]

invariably speedos read optimistic. I had a really cool gilera 180cc scooter once, when the spedo said 80 i was doing 60. It's 'coz the italians love to think they are going fast.
My 1150 beemer reads 110 at 100 true. My fairly new corolla is dead on, per my tom tom.

The problem arises when you put bigger tyres on a car. If the rolling circumference is bigger by more than a certain % you will start getting tickets, as your speedo will read under. I understand it is actually illegal to increase the overall rolling circumference by more than a certain %, just to avoid this. You can do it, but it has to be certified.

i'm not saying that you should be allowed to speed past schools, just that giving out tickets for speeding when it is reasonable for a driver to have been certain that they were not (according to their speedo) is going to acheive exactly nothing and is simply revenue gathering

a ticket in the 1-10 km/h over any limit band costs $30, and fine the money doesn't go to the police. interested in a fact? It costs $27 for the police to issue, process, enforce each and every ticket written (excluding camera tickets, i think). That's the total cost of the paperwork, the resources and the people who are paid to write and process tickets, all divided by the number of tickets written. So, writing a ticket for $30 costs $27, meaning a net outcome of $3, which the police don't get. Hmmmmm......... Even a cop can work out that it's a pretty poor method of revenue collecting. Maybe, just maybe, the individual cop who writes the ticket isn't motivated by the money it raises.

Go figure, why would they spend time outside schools revenue collecting (for someone else) when it would be far more lucrative standing at any stop sign in the country ($150 and lets face it, stop signs are almost universally ignored here), enforcing the l-plate rule ($100 and hardly ever written), any number of more sensible things.

Maybe, just maybe, the cops actually want their presence to slow people down around schools.

Imagine that.

so who gets the $3 is it santa clause?

[onearmedbandit]

so who gets the $3 is it santa clause?

Hmmm, maybe the gubbermint?

[McWild]

On my regular rides out I go past a couple of schools that have the 40km/h limit. It's easy to stick to that speed for 500m just to ensure a kiddie doesn't run out and get collected. And I love watching the frustrated looks on the faces of the car drivers behind me.

And this way you get more time for kids to go "WOW COOL A MOTORBIKE"

Gets a smile from me every time

[onearmedbandit]

And this way you get more time for kids to go "WOW COOL A MOTORBIKE"

Gets a smile from me every time

Ha true, kids love bikes and wave like nutters.

[Indoo]

My point is that a speedo can be reading 50 when in actual fact a radar gun will record you doing 55. .

The opposite is actually correct, speedos are actually calibrated to read around %10 'slow' to protect against such a circumstance arising, but more importantly from the car manufacturer protecting them against any possible liability while sticking within international guidelines.

[swbarnett]

Easy answer to this...think of the kids and drive so that your speedo indicates a speed of 40 km/h and will never have a problem outside schools with a 50 km/h limit. So simple and stupid I'm surprised you never thought of it?

I did. I just don't agree with being that paranoid when there's not a kid to be seen. I'm not advocating a lack of caution when the footpaths are full of them.

[rastuscat]

Hmmm, maybe the gubbermint?

Yup, the gubbermint gets the $30. And the Police budget loses $27. So writing tickets is actually a cost to Police, as it raises money for another gubbermint agency, but costs the Police to run.

In fact, regardless of how much the ticket is for, all the money goes to the consolidated fund, but still costs the Police to write, process and prosecute.

Revenue collecting? Yeah right. If it's revenue collecting for the Police, we need to replace the Police accountant who invented it, as it costs them millions each year.

[swbarnett]

Revenue collecting? Yeah right. If it's revenue collecting for the Police, we need to replace the Police accountant who invented it, as it costs them millions each year.

Ever heard the term "you rub my back and I'll rub yours"? The more the police put in to the consolidated fund the easier time they will have when it comes to asking for a bigger budget.

[Ixion]

Yup, the gubbermint gets the $30. And the Police budget loses $27. So writing tickets is actually a cost to Police, as it raises money for another gubbermint agency, but costs the Police to run.

In fact, regardless of how much the ticket is for, all the money goes to the consolidated fund, but still costs the Police to write, process and prosecute.

Revenue collecting? Yeah right. If it's revenue collecting for the Police, we need to replace the Police accountant who invented it, as it costs them millions each year.

I fear you are being disingenuous , Sir. The money is paid to the treasury account, but when budget time comes, the police appropriation from the fund will depend on how much has been paid in. In other words, if not enough tickets are issued in a year, the police budget next year will be reduced. Which means either less police or pay cuts! It's a simple accounting exercise to keep track of the revenue generated by various government departments, no different to a business, where the sales departments that generate most sales revenue will (usually) get the biggest promotional and marketing budgets. Treasury are VERY good at the accounting

This is why the police are required to spend a certain amount of time on road policing. That time is expected to generate revenue. By taking the avergae value of a 'ticket' and doing a bit of arithmetic, we come up with the infamous 'quota'.

So if the police force (note that all this is on a force wide basis, nothing to do with individual police officers), does not generate enough revenue, it will be for the chop next year.

The $3 is the 'extra' charged by Treasury for administering all this. In effect they add an extra 10% for administration

This is only relevant to 'tickets' (TON? I get confused with those acronyms) though, not criminal charges or parking warden 'tickets' they are a different matter. (I should add that it did not use to be thus . Prior to Mr Douglas and his wonderful market based logic, in which departments like Police were expected to run like businesses, the police were funded on a simple "how much do you need to do the job " basis. )

[red mermaid]

Dont know where you get your fairy tales from, but they are completely wrong.

I fear you are being disingenuous , Sir. The money is paid to the treasury account, but when budget time comes, the police appropriation from the fund will depend on how much has been paid in. In other words, if not enough tickets are issued in a year, the police budget next year will be reduced. Which means either less police or pay cuts! It's a simple accounting exercise to keep track of the revenue generated by various government departments, no different to a business, where the sales departments that generate most sales revenue will (usually) get the biggest promotional and marketing budgets. Treasury are VERY good at the accounting

This is why the police are required to spend a certain amount of time on road policing. That time is expected to generate revenue. By taking the avergae value of a 'ticket' and doing a bit of arithmetic, we come up with the infamous 'quota'.

So if the police force (note that all this is on a force wide basis, nothing to do with individual police officers), does not generate enough revenue, it will be for the chop next year.

The $3 is the 'extra' charged by Treasury for administering all this. In effect they add an extra 10% for administration

This is only relevant to 'tickets' (TON? I get confused with those acronyms) though, not criminal charges or parking warden 'tickets' they are a different matter. (I should add that it did not use to be thus . Prior to Mr Douglas and his wonderful market based logic, in which departments like Police were expected to run like businesses, the police were funded on a simple "how much do you need to do the job " basis. )

[Ixion]

Indeed? Then perhaps you would be prepared to explain YOUR understanding of Treasury accounting and Vote : Police revenue sources? (I'll assume that you are an accountant)

I am always interested to hear from one who has the inner ear of Mr Whitehead.

[red mermaid]

I know the way police officers are directed in their work methods and it has no resemblance to anything you have ever described.

I have difficulty in understanding how a person who does not work in traffic enforcement can claim to have such an intimate knowledge of the subject, and then pontificate on the subject.

[Ixion]

It's called reading Treasury papers. And Hansard.

You also seem to have studiously ignored my specific qualification

(note that all this is on a force wide basis, nothing to do with individual police officers)

We are talking about how the Police force is funded at a Treasury level. Not what Sarge told your mate .

[rastuscat]

Indeed? Then perhaps you would be prepared to explain YOUR understanding of Treasury accounting and Vote : Police revenue sources? (I'll assume that you are an accountant)

I am always interested to hear from one who has the inner ear of Mr Whitehead.

Road Policing doesn't come from the Vote:Police funding.

Police funding comes from 79% Vote:Police, and 21% Land Transport Fund. That's why the Police are expected to spend 21% of their resources on Road Policing.

I see from reading the above that there is some acknowledgement that it is not the front line cop who is the revenue collector, but those higher up the financial food chain. I'm sure there is someone in Treasury who sits and likes to count the fine revenue, but it is the front line cop who cops the sh** from everyone about it being revenue collecting. After a few years of hearing about how we are revenue collectors it gets a little tiresome, especially when it's not our motivation for writing tickets.

According to Freud, there is a defence mechanism called rationalization. One leg of that mechanism is that for someone accused of something, it is natural to accuse the accuser i.e. attack back. It happens every day at roadside interactions. E.g, someone is stopped for not wearing a seatbelt. There is often no dispute about the fact (like, the seatbelt wasn't worn, period) but the accused immediately comes back with revenue collecting. Like, the ticket is nothing to do with the fact that wearing a seatbelt is a good idea, the ticket suddenly becomes a revenue collecting matter. Suddenly it's not the driver who broke the law, it's the cop who is just a revenue collector.

When are we ever going to grow up and accept responsibility for our own actions?

The other way to look at it is just to say yes, it's dirty filthy revenue collecting. So do yourself a favour, don't get tickets and you won't be taxed. It's self selection. Don't want tickets? Don't break the law. Don't want a ticket for 55 in a 50 km/h area? Don't do 55.

[Ixion]

..

The other way to look at it is just to say yes, it's dirty filthy revenue collecting. So do yourself a favour, don't get tickets and you won't be taxed. It's self selection. Don't want tickets? Don't break the law. Don't want a ticket for 55 in a 50 km/h area? Don't do 55.

Well, firstly, that doesn't always work. There have been many cases of bikers getting tickets when they weren't breaking the law. For many reasons, not all of them sinister (unless one agrees with the scaley gentlewoman, that suggesting a cop can ever be wrong is inherently evil) .

Secondly, it only works in individual cases. Consider, if every motorist always obeyed the law (yes, I know it would never happen, but let us expand the hypothesis). Now, there would be no tickets issued . Individual cops would probably be quite happy (a few might be disgruntled, so perhaps a few , contested, tickets might still be issued). But, by and large, no tickets. Thus, no ticket revenue. Happy cops, happy drivers. But Treasury would NOT be happy. That lost revenue pays (as you have noted) 21% of the cost of the police force . So , either the cost of the police force must be reduced by 21% (by sacking a lot of cops!) ; or the revenue must be increased somehow. Obviously, the latter will be the choice

So I will confidently predict that if ticket revenue started to fall, mesures would be taken to increase it. Cops would have their quotas increased, (that is sort of automatic); speed limits would be reduced,; fines increased; etc.

Like it or not , the police force IS a significant source of government revenue; and thus every cop , whether willingly or not (and I personally would be totally happy to accept that it is unwillingly) is a revenue gatherer.