Is Public Safety just a way to generate revenue?

[Boges]

2 stories that seem to support this hypothesis.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/03/28/police_hobocop_drill_bums_us_out_editorial.html

Having a Toronto police officer pose as a hoodie-wearing street person at a stoplight at a Hwy. 401 off-ramp to bust drivers for thumbing their smart phones is a clever tactic, to be sure. Effective too. But Officer Goodwill should stow the hoodie in his swag bag and jump the next railcar out of town. This tactic risks bumming out more people than it busts.

Yeah, we get it. Driving and handling smartphones don’t mix, and the law is rightly coming down hard on offenders. There’s now a $280 ticket waiting for scofflaws, and frankly the Star would be happier if there were demerit points as well. It’s a dangerous, leading cause of death on the roads. We welcome police efforts to get that message across. And we know plainclothes police routinely bust johns, drug dealers and all manner of miscreants. It’s perfectly legal, and a common tactic.

Texting while driving seems to becoming more of a menace than drunk driving. For obvious reason's it's very unsafe. But if you're car is stopped at a light and you simply look at a mobile device it's not the same thing. Yet in Ontario you still are subject to the same $280 fine, and there's a bill in the works to up that fine to $1000. I was using my phone as a GPS this weekend. It's on a cradle on my dash. Technically if I was stopped and I wanted to change the destination I would be subject to this fine as well.

Then there's this.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/07/manhas-to-pay-100-for-momentarily-removing-seat-belt-while-at-a-stop-sign/

Tyler Wilson may have had no malice in his heart when he momentarily unbuckled his seatbelt at a Burlington stop sign three years ago.

By briefly unclasping the restraint to adjust a spilling coffee cup in his backseat, there is no evidence Mr. Wilson put anyone’s safety at risk, impeded the flow of traffic or even believed he was skirting the law in any way.

With all that in mind, Ontario’s highest court recently ruled that Mr. Wilson unequivocally deserved his $100+ traffic ticket.

The March 21 decision, handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal, ruled that the act of not wearing a seatbelt is a case of “strict liability.” In short, anyone caught without the restraint is virtually always automatically guilty.

This isn't an example of someone driving down a highway without a seatbelt, he just took his belt off at a stopped car.

Where's the discretion? This is not about public safety, it's about quotas and generating revenue under the guise of public safety.

Cops sit at speed traps on Sunday mornings, not to keep people safe but to nab people on empty roads for speeding.

It really does make people wonder what the purpose of law enforcement is really for.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Boges

[eyeball]

Yeah, we get it. Driving and handling smartphones don’t mix

I don't think we get it enough. Why no one has developed a small mobile phone jammer that can be installed in a car is beyond me.

Cops sit at speed traps on Sunday mornings, not to keep people safe but to nab people on empty roads for speeding.

Further to the above...I fail to see why we don't have engine speed governors slaved to a GPS telling the car what the speed limit is so it cannot be exceeded.

It really does make people wonder what the purpose of law enforcement is really for.

Amongst other things, like safety, I thought the main purpose of advancements in technology was to eliminate labour costs. We could lay off thousands of cops within a few short years if we did what I've suggested.

Of course if you want to live in a society with police everywhere eliminating these sorts of threats to public safety might clash with some ideological belief system or another.

[Boges]

You can't Jam cellphone use in a car. There is bluetooth technology that makes it safer, many use their phones as their GPS, and passengers shouldn't be barred from using their phone.

A GPS governor on a car would be a privacy issue. Insurance companies are trying to get people to have GPS's installed in cars so they can't "give you a discount". You could also use it to penalize people for EVERY traffic infraction they perform. Hey you didn't stop long enough at that stop sign!!

Again all about revenue.

Also, in Ontario, you have this subjective speed limit. When the highway says the limit is 100 kms, it's actually 120. They won't raise it to 120 because then people will think it's 140. I would support raising the limit to 120 and enforce it, but that's not what's happening. Again, I suspect, because of revenue. They can ding you for going 30 over at 130 even though you're really only going 10 over the unofficial limit.

[Bryan]

Cash grab is the true motivation for most ticketed offences. Safety may be a factor, but generally isn't.

[eyeball]

You can't Jam cellphone use in a car. There is bluetooth technology that makes it safer, many use their phones as their GPS, and passengers shouldn't be barred from using their phone.

You're telling me its technologically impossible? The jammer can't be fitted so that it can only be bypassed in the event a hands free device is being employed? I don't believe it.

A GPS governor on a car would be a privacy issue.

Only if the device was built to invade privacy, that's why I said slaved to the engine governor not the human behind the wheel. Besides which the best way to prevent the government's invasion of our privacy is to invade it's secrecy, which technology would facilitate cheaply, easily and effectively.

Again all about revenue.

Cash grab

Yes well, penetrating government secrecy would have many many other benefits wouldn't it?

Edited April 8, 2014 by eyeball

[Boges]

You're telling me its technologically impossible? The jammer can't be fitted so that it can only be bypassed in the event a hands free device is being employed? I don't believe it.

You tell me? You'd have to somehow create a bubble around the drivers seat. And again, why can't someone use their phone as a GPS? It would be very complicated to do it, much easier to fine people for looking at their phones at red lights.

Only if the device was built to invade privacy, that's why I said slaved to the engine governor not the human behind the wheel. Besides which the best way to prevent the government's invasion of our privacy is to invade it's secrecy, which technology would facilitate cheaply, easily and effectively.

I just don't trust that a government would use it for good. Also if they made it impossible to speed that would mean no revenue. Don't want to do that do they?

They've already governed trucks at 105 km/h But sometimes there are reasons a car needs to go over the speed limit.

What's needed is discretion, the examples cited in the OP show that discretion isn't being used.

[eyeball]

Coming to a future near you...

Cell phone jammers for automobiles

GPS engine speed governor

Those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it.

I just don't trust that a government would use it for good.

Neither would I which is why I say we need to penetrate their secrecy.

[Boges]

With using a mobile phone while driving illegal in many places around the world, the team says the system could also be adapted to report traffic infringements to the police. In such cases, an RFID tag would store details of the infringement, along with the vehicle’s registration details, and transmit them to a traffic signal post where police could access the information. Alternatively, the system could provide the driver with an alert when they attempt to use a phone.

Sup Big Brother.

All About the Money!

I'm sure police unions will be thrilled they will no longer be needed for keeping the roads safe.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Boges

[eyeball]

If our technology can do all that, then there is no good reason why we can't make the jump to hands free driving and eliminate the driver errors and omissions that make driving dangerous. Cars will probably be able to drive twice as fast as they presently do and you could watch TV on the way.

Since when did you start wringing your hands over the fate of a union? I trust you don't do that while you're driving.

Edited April 8, 2014 by eyeball

[eyeball]

As for Big Brother sucking money out of us... monitor the sucker like he monitors us.

[Boges]

If our technology can do all that, then there is no good reason why we can't make the jump to hands free driving and eliminate the driver errors and omissions that make driving dangerous. Cars will probably be able to drive twice as fast as they presently do and you could watch TV on the way.

Since when did you start wringing your hands over the fate of a union? I trust you don't do that while you're driving.

I wouldn't wring my hands, but I'm sure any they would still oppose any such movement. AND they would undergo an extensive fear-mongering campaign.

Self-driving cars are definitely going to be a reality at some point. But liability issues have to be ironed out. If the driver still is responsible for an accident then a self driving car is just glorified cruise control.

I'm just raising practical issues with what you're proposing. And I'm claiming that if technology could remove traffic violations then what of the revenue that ticketing generates?

Do you think governments would forgo the revenue? I don't.

[eyeball]

Is Public Safety just a way to generate revenue?

In a round about way, yes. Public safety or more to the point, threats to it are a time worn old ploy governments and police use to generate fear and calls for more police and of course more government and laws and rules. Expect lots more photo ops of politicians and police chiefs crowding around each other in our name.

Self-driving cars are definitely going to be a reality at some point. But liability issues have to be ironed out. If the driver still is responsible for an accident then a self driving car is just glorified cruise control.

I'm quite certain there will be decades of moral, ideological, and other forms of panic that will keep things more or less the way they are, except with more police, more government and of course more tickets cash and revenues. I suspect we'll still have less public privacy and more official secrecy.

I'm just raising practical issues with what you're proposing. And I'm claiming that if technology could remove traffic violations then what of the revenue that ticketing generates?

Why will you need more revenue if you have fewer cops? There will also be huge savings in medical costs associated with vehicle accidents. I guess the hospital unions will get their noses out of joint over this too I guess I can't blame them given how disdainfully society generally treats the economic losers of technological change.

Edited April 8, 2014 by eyeball

[overthere]

public safety is a very well established industry that will simply switch gears if you take away the cash cows of photo radar, other minor speeding infractions, distracted driving etc the businbess will simply refocus on somehting else to keep the cash flowing and the industry viable.

It's not like the cops don't have excellent organization to make sure that nobody ever gets laid off. They all have professional communciators now too to ensure that there is a constant threat to our safety that needs lawyers guns and money.

Serious crime has dropped in Canada, but has per capita spending on the police followed? hell no, there is always a new bogeyman waiting.

Orwell covered all this long ago.

[bleeding heart]

There seems to be a broad and multipartisan agreement on the inherent corruption of ticketing.

Interesting.

[Bob Macadoo]

There seems to be a broad and multipartisan agreement on the inherent corruption of ticketing.

Interesting.

Not I.

In both the cases presented by the OP the solution was very simple; pull the hell over. Then magno-irradiate your brain til the cows come home. The cop was at a hwy ramp, therefore the scofflaws were looking down in their crotch rather than up not seconds earlier. Case 2, he unbuckled at a stop sign.......where do you think he's likely to get rear-ended?

I would support demerit points completely however some economist has figured out alot of people without licenses might hurt the economy....so they'll just do what they do best; suck money out of the public and think people won't repeat wasting money on fines. How little they know public selfish behaviour. Their life is too important to stop and use a phone, not when you can talk, surf the web, eat breakfast, read a book, and stick their head up their own arse from the comfort of their Ford Fiesta.......

In fact I would support forced community service rather than demerit points, then you get economic benefit without the political grease raked in.

[guyser]

Texting while driving seems to becoming more of a menace than drunk driving. For obvious reason's it's very unsafe. But if you're car is stopped at a light and you simply look at a mobile device it's not the same thing. Yet in Ontario you still are subject to the same $280 fine,

Unless you are a cop.

Always remember, them vs Us.

Cops sit at speed traps on Sunday mornings, not to keep people safe but to nab people on empty roads for speeding It really does make people wonder what the purpose of law enforcement is really for.

A cop doesnt get tickets

I have seen the numbers for Toronto Police,and frankly when 5000 people collectively have a few hundred tickets, if that many, then one realizes the system is geareed against us and we pay.

[guyser]

Not I.

In both the cases presented by the OP the solution was very simple; pull the hell over.

ok, he pulled over....and still got a ticket.

Now what?

The cop was at a hwy ramp, therefore the scofflaws were looking down in their crotch rather than up not seconds earlier. Case 2, he unbuckled at a stop sign.......where do you think he's likely to get rear-ended?

They were stopped. Thats the issue with the intent of the law, but naw....couldnt have cops being smart now could we?

For the record if your cell is in a dash holder you can use it, or rather you can puch some buttons to make a call, end a call and so on, as that is legal.

[Bob Macadoo]

ok, he pulled over....and still got a ticket.Now what?They were stopped. Thats the issue with the intent of the law, but naw....couldnt have cops being smart now could we?For the record if your cell is in a dash holder you can use it, or rather you can puch some buttons to make a call, end a call and so on, as that is legal.

He didn't pull over, he was in traffic.....stopped is not pulled over......he thought his coffee or his upholstery was more important than his safety or the road....his mistake.

For the record you CAN'T "use" that device unless you are no longer considered a vehicle in traffic. You can use steering wheel buttons if available to you.....which for GPSs I disagree with. I would watch your driving......misinformation is worth $280.

[guyser]

He didn't pull over, he was in traffic.....stopped is not pulled over......he thought his coffee or his upholstery was more important than his safety or the road....his mistake.

And still can get a ticket since you are in the car. Now what?

His car was s topped, he spilled ocffee, it is more important than his seat belt since no safewty is comprtomised (not that cops care either way) since he was not moving thus removing any safety concerns.

For the record you CAN'T "use" that device unless you are no longer considered a vehicle in traffic. You can use steering wheel buttons if available to you.....which for GPSs I disagree with. I would watch your driving......misinformation is worth $280.

For the record you can "use" as I said. The law says there are exemptions.

[bleeding heart]

Just to clarify, Bob, I wasn't speaking specifically of the situation at hand at all. (The thread subject, so my bad.)

I was talking about the practice of ticketing in general.

And never mind that it's also inherently a class-based system of greater punishment for the poor(er). By definition.

[Bob Macadoo]

And still can get a ticket since you are in the car. Now what?

....a ticket for what? If you are pulled over out of traffic you may use a handheld device, not that difficult, just turn wheel right and apply brake, then shift to park.

His car was s topped, he spilled ocffee, it is more important than his seat belt since no safewty is comprtomised (not that cops care either way) since he was not moving thus removing any safety concerns.

He's in the roadway, his safety is still in play, unless you believe he's an immovable object. His mocha-frappa-latte though is not a driving concern, which is the responsibility in the car.

For the record you can "use" as I said. The law says there are exemptions.

The exception is to disconnect the call if its mounted......like a radio.......not for texting or surfing......

And never mind that it's also inherently a class-based system of greater punishment for the poor(er). By definition.

Sorry...what's by definition.....you're confusing me again. I don't see how its a class based system, actually as opposed to every other aspect of our law system it is the most egalitarian. I see those driving Maseratis pulled over the same as Chevettes, what is unfair is politicians, clerks, cops, etc. fixing tickets for their friends/family......thats more nepotism than classism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Class based system ? Doesn't seem to be a problem when it comes to different income tax rates to generate revenue.

[guyser]

....a ticket for what? If you are pulled over out of traffic you may use a handheld device, not that difficult, just turn wheel right and apply brake, then shift to park.

And you could very well get a ticket. If on 401 or similar, ticket city baby !

And why? You are NOT legally parked.

He's in the roadway, his safety is still in play, unless you believe he's an immovable object. His mocha-frappa-latte though is not a driving concern, which is the responsibility in the car.

Of course it could have been just a coffee instead of whatever cool hipster drink you might like, of course stopped too, but hey, you like a silly police state with no brains, welcome to it. The issue is intent.

Much like the laws moving booze. Cant go anywhere but home, cant have it anywhere the driver has access, including in the back of a hatchback. Drive thru beer stores where they hand you a case..?...that can get you stopped and ticketed, but rarely is that one enforced so they do have discretion unless they are.....gasp ...generating revenue.

The exception is to disconnect the call if its mounted......like a radio.......not for texting or surfing......

Thats one of the exemptions

[eyeball]

Serious crime has dropped in Canada, but has per capita spending on the police followed? hell no, there is always a new bogeyman waiting.

Orwell covered all this long ago.

It's taken a sycophantic compliant society to make this process work. Enablers would be another word for the type of people I mean. And it's only taken a few for the government and cops to believe and declare the people have spoken and thereby given them a mandate. We still end up with a ridiculously protective Nanny State that sucks money out us like there's no tomorrow. The only difference between the Nannies on offer is to suffer being smothered with concern or beaten with a baton.

[eyeball]

There seems to be a broad and multipartisan agreement on the inherent corruption of ticketing.

Interesting.

I hope I'm not wrong but I think we might be seeing the same thing happening when it comes to the way politicians dole out their influence and the way it's doled out and to who and why.

Of course it will only take the barest whiff of authoritarian submission to nip that in the bud.