Just another speeding ticket thread

[rastuscat]

Funny that in my world our performance is measured by the road toll, not the revenue we gather. Ultimately, we are judged by the number of deaths and hospitalizations. That's what our bosses keep on about, and rightly so. I've never been told by any of my bosses to go out and collect revenue. Hell, if they cut my salary and offered me a 10% commission, then I'd accept the revenue collecting tag, but not today.

On my office wall I have my team mission stated "Take Action to Change Behaviour to Reduce Crashes". I measure my staff performance by the quality of the tickets, not the quantity. I'd rather see 10 seatbelt tickets than 20 for something nit picking. My team knows that, actually agrees with me and does the job we think is right.

The gubbermint is reviewing all fines, and some are coming down. E.g. licence breaches used to be $400, now they are $100. Ironically, my staff are now writing more of them as they never used to like fining someone $400 for a technical licence breach. I'm only talking my staff here.

We are lobbying to get demerits as the main behaviour change mechanism, instead of fines. How bizarre is it that a noisy vehicle ticket had demerits, but there are none for going through a red light. Same with seatbelts, I'd like to see the fine come down and demerits introduced. How random is that that there are demerits for a noisy exhaust but none for a seatbelt offence.

Your hypothetical world of total compliance would mean that the Road Police branch could be shut down, and those resources reallocated to other police functions. Perversely, if everyone complied with all the road rules, there would be more cops to attend the burglaries etc. People keep telling traffic cops they should be out catching a burglar when they are writing a speeding ticket. Ironically, if the person had not been speeding (or whatever else) (and nobody else did either) there wouldn't be a need for traffic cops, and resources could do the burglary work instead. It's a self defeating argument.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a pill to put in the water that caused everyone to comply with every road rule. Until that day, all we have are the coercive tools the gubermint provides, and thats' what we use.

[rastuscat]

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) .

Because I'm on the other side of the fence, I'd have to say that I doubt that there are as many wrongly accused riders as you suggest. My team has produced positive video evidence of offences (we use video occasionally only) of people who would stand in court and swear that they hadn't committed the offence. Further, all their mates believe him because he is a decent bloke who wouldn't lie, but the cops are revenue collecting ********s.

I also believe that the person who says they haven't done something we've accused them of is likely to genuinely (but mistakenly) believe they are innocent, so can mount a fairly convincing argument. We are frequently told we did not see what we just saw. It's the nature of the occupation.

[Ixion]

..
Your hypothetical world of total compliance would mean that the Road Police branch could be shut down, and those resources reallocated to other police functions. Perversely, if everyone complied with all the road rules, there would be more cops to attend the burglaries etc. People keep telling traffic cops they should be out catching a burglar when they are writing a speeding ticket. Ironically, if the person had not been speeding (or whatever else) (and nobody else did either) there wouldn't be a need for traffic cops, and resources could do the burglary work instead. It's a self defeating argument.

Well,no, they wouldn't be transferred, because there would be no money to pay for them. That's the point. We all accept that cops don't issue tickets because of the revenue they generate. But, Treasury DOES rely on that revenue. Treasury are bean counters, they don't care, at a corporate level about safety. They care about revenue. No revenue, no cops. It's called cost recovery, and Treasury hate departments that aren't self funding.

[rustic101]

No one seems to mention or remember that ACC fund a large portion of the Road Policing budget.

[rastuscat]

Well,no, they wouldn't be transferred, because there would be no money to pay for them. That's the point. We all accept that cops don't issue tickets because of the revenue they generate. But, Treasury DOES rely on that revenue. Treasury are bean counters, they don't care, at a corporate level about safety. They care about revenue. No revenue, no cops. It's called cost recovery, and Treasury hate departments that aren't self funding.

Okay, so how about stopping calling the roadside cops revenue collectors, and start using that name for the treasury officials you are referring to. That way the cops won't have to listen to the criticism intended for someone else, and people might start talking sense instead of just resorting to the old chestnut of getting ticketed because of revenue collecting.

You're right, the cops don't actually care about the revenue. It doesn't go to them, their boss or their bosses boss. Not directly, anyway.

Hey, if the cops are revenue collectors, how about calling anyone who produces revenue for the gubbermint a revenue collector. Trouble is, that's most of us. It's no fun singling out a majority, it's easier to just keep rolling out the same ol' chestnut.

[onearmedbandit]

What would happen if all financial penalties were removed from driving offences? Would the animosity presently displayed be dropped and people accept that they were at fault, or would the public find another front to attack them on? If you believe that the 'attacks' would be reduced then why are you hassling front line police when the decision is not in their hands?

[swbarnett]

Don't want tickets? Don't break the law.

This is like saying "don't want to go to Auschwitz, don't be a Jew". Just becvause a law exists does not mean it is just (or indeed logical).

[swbarnett]

Ultimately, we are judged by the number of deaths and hospitalizations.

And there in lies the problem. This is not (correct me if I'm wrong) balanced by incereasing vehicle numbers or an increase in the time they spend on the road. If there are more vehicles that spend more time on the road the road toll will go up (or at least not go down as fast). This does not mean drivers are getting worse.

Absolute numbers compared year to year are meaningless without factoring in social changes.