Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxKing
Laughable... you use this term too loosely from what I have read. Revenue no matter how it is brought in by law enforcement is monitored, so if there had/is a dramatic drop to one of these streams of cash flow, then someone is out there looking to make changes, or even worse, looking to point the finger at something/someone else. Now mind you I would say that a majority of law enforcement should be focused on DUI, and "reckless" driving, which are real hazards of day-2-day drivers who comply to the guidelines. As for being cited for other infractions non-moving related... well you run the risk of getting cited for them, and these are usually visual mods to appeal to the owners tastes and how they want to personalize there vehicle.
Im not going to get into any debate, bc the only real thing thats laughable are those drivers that feel they are entitled to do as they wish to their cars (or even drive) without penalty when doing something that is non-conforming to the law.
ps. My comments were not pulled from think air, and I cited what was written in an article covered nationally - with the primary there in CA.
Your reply: "Lets see this so called article you speak of"
My reply:  |
You paint with too broad a brush. Look, citation fines are revenue, just like victim restitution fines, weed abatement fines (....
e.g...fines for having an unkempt front yard), etc. There's a punitive dollar amount assigned/attached to just about every type of broken law however frivolous that written law may be. Why you guys seem to focus so much on vehicle fines (...
and tend to funnel law enforcement away from focusing on them) is beyond me. While important, DUI/reckless driving enforcement aren't the end all, be all of law enforcement. Like I stated in an earlier post, minor traffic violations OFTEN lead to major apprehensions of criminals. There IS a rhyme and reason to it regardless of whether or not you/others agree with it. I don't think you are in a position to tell me what the "
real" hazards of day-to-day driving are. I don't intend that to come across antagonistic in any way, shape or form, but it is the truth. You don't know how many traffic collisions any particular station handles per day/month. You don't know about causality (..
aka..PCF, or Primary Collision Factors), nor do you have any idea about the additional repercussions of those accidents (..
i.e...injuries or death to innocent parties, property damage, etc.). My main purpose in replying to some of the comments is to dispel any perceptions that aren't legitimate, and confirm others. Granted, there are always variances in what officers do from other departments and that patrol other areas (...
we are dealing with people here....and people are organic), so take what I say with a few grains of salt.
As for the article, I'm not too concerned with what an article says. It doesn't mirror what I experience, so I give little credence/weight to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L
Do these apply to "too high" as well. I drive a 1-ton 4x4 diesel pickup yet when I'm sat at a light the bumpers of some lifted pickup trucks are close to my shoulder level. I would think they are a far greater safety hazard than cars that are too low.
|
That's a good question. Let me check into that.