thing is all the other departments are expected to be handing out tickets too. so they hide some of the costs for traffic by having other cops do traffic too. it's like turbofacts...
Now THIS is how you complain.
- Thread starter OpenGambit
- Start date
thing is all the other departments are expected to be handing out tickets too. so they hide some of the costs for traffic by having other cops do traffic too. it's like turbofacts...
Speed differentials between traffic increases risk of crash. That is proven reality.
Increased speeds pose particularly increased risk to vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists, etc, especially in densely-populated city environments where the presence of such road users is particularly high. That is also proven reality.
Increased speeds increase crash severity. That too is proven reality.
Seems that you don't want acknowledge reality.
Your reality my friend is no better. you try to draw straight lines across scenario's so far apart using numbers you cant even back up so do yourself a favor a have a tall glass of shut the **** up.
Which numbers are you referring to? Or are you just mindlessly throwing mud against the wall?
Read your previous posts, you are the ones asking for them.
you are trying to draw a line between motor vehicle accident and criminals, just the fact that you think there's any kind of link between the two shows how much you know.
Gimme a call when someone you know get raped or killed cause it was more important to give someone a 10 over ticket.
Edit: apparently I don't know how to spell either... jes...
Last edited:
I've not tried to draw any such line.
Huh? Are you trying to suggest that deploying all traffic units to violent crime will stop all rapes and homicides, or even just reduce them a little? Who's drawing lines now?
What's the difference between someone who intentionally set out to kill someone and someone who negligently runs someone over? In the end, someone is still dead and it's still something that needs to be prevented.
Negligence is just as serious as anything else.
Edit: This thread is full of fail on both sides.
So malice = negligence in your books. We're all negligent at one time or another you know, does that makes us as bad as criminals? Do you figure it will make society a better place to treat the two the same?
So what? Increased petty crime leads to increased violent crime too, but none of that is relevant.
Focus here. The complaint is that police enforce traffic laws constantly, while at the same time they can't afford an officer to investigate crime.
It would be like criminal courts being too tied up with civil cases to bother prosecuting crimes, if they could switch back and forth like that.
The cops don't enforce traffic laws constantly. If they did, many here would no longer have a license.
The cops also investigate other crimes but as in everything else in life, you put your dollars where you get the most critical and most effective bang for the buck. Certain crimes are investigated with greater rigour than others, and crimes against the person have always taken resource priority over crimes against property. Even if they don't come dust your house for fingerprints over a stolen TV though, the report and location is still logged so patterns can be tracked.
This is the problem with this thread. Everyone is trying to paint this black and white, it's not.
All I'm saying is an appropriate level of resources need to be allocated to both (negligent traffic and criminals). We shouldn't compromise one for the other, both are important.
As was stated earlier, there are far more fatalities and injuries caused by negligence on the road than there are as a result of malice intent. So that's where the Police focus a great deal of attention. That doesn't mean crime isn't getting any attention, but god forbid there are more important things to investigate than someone's garage getting broken into.
"Well isn't that a compromise then?" No, because look how many people get away with traffic violations as well. It's limitation of resources. But at the same time, everyone thinks Police budgets need to be cut and want them to stop handing out as many tickets.
the difference between a traffic violation and an actual crime is intent... you don't intend harm when you make a left turn against a no left turn sign and dire consequences could result of that decision, but more than likely nothing bad will happen to anyone... yet if you break into my house you've caused me harm and it was entirely your intent to do so. you say the end result of a traffic accident causing death and some one murdering some one is the same, thus the ends justify the means, ergo it would be ok for me to defraud the lottery system as long as i gave the money to charity, no one actually got hurt and some orphans got some blankets for their beds...
certain traffic tickets i can see being handed out, If the infractions happen while an officer is out patrolling the roads.
sitting hidden behind a building, waiting for a speeder is not patrolling the roads.
hiding behind a mailbox and popping their head out to check for a seatbelt ( had this happen to me ) is not patrolling the roads.
seatbelt tickets have absolutley nothing to do with road safety, the only ones hurting themselves are the people doing it. so tickets like these are cash grabs for the municipalities,
on that note, Insurance companies shouldnt even be notified on such a stupid ticket.
traffic cops should PATROL the roads, looking for bad drivers, not hiding and waiting for people to come to them.
sitting hidden behind a building, waiting for a speeder is not patrolling the roads.
hiding behind a mailbox and popping their head out to check for a seatbelt ( had this happen to me ) is not patrolling the roads.
seatbelt tickets have absolutley nothing to do with road safety, the only ones hurting themselves are the people doing it. so tickets like these are cash grabs for the municipalities,
on that note, Insurance companies shouldnt even be notified on such a stupid ticket.
traffic cops should PATROL the roads, looking for bad drivers, not hiding and waiting for people to come to them.
while we are on the subject of ends meeting the means... if some one completes a left or right turn against a sign that says not to do it and no accident happens because there was no traffic then obviously it wasn't an unsafe move...
I mostly tend to disagree with you on this forum, but this post is DEAD-ON! Instead of camping out and just bothering with one offense because it's stupid-easy to prove in court, prevalent in this province as there is no requirement for an engineer to look over the limits and can be run in an assembly-line fashion, they should be out an about, catching people who yap on the phone, don't signal their turns, operate moving blizzards/mounds of snow.. You know, stuff that I'd swear was legal here considering how rampant it is. Of course, they should designate a few to investigate uhmmm crime.
... What?
THIS! This is a valid argument that I can understand. Frankly, I share some of the frustration. I would like to see more tickets being issued on main roads and highways rather than people going through stop signs on some residential road out in the middle of who cares.
that's too much work. it's easier to just sit in a corner and wait for speeders.
Such as in the middle of who cares Hampstead?
Oh please. Listen, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.
Referencing one incident doesn't change anything. ****** happens and it doesn't matter where you allocate resources or how evenly, ****** will continue to happen. You can't be everywhere at once. I didn't say to completely disregard stop signs, I would just prefer to see a higher Police presence in heavier travelled areas which is where more traffic incidents tend to occur.
That wasn't really aimed at you. It was aimed at those who think that minor little breaches are no big deal, and that the cops should be out dealing with "real" crime like stolen motorcycles or TVs where there is "intent" to do cause harm.
If you take the words of certain people here at face value, they seem to suggest that even though 11 people died in this one, the driver's failing to stop offence shouldn't be considered a big deal because after all, he didn't intend to hurt anyone.
As far as being on the main roads more, that fine and well, but there also needs to be a presence on the back roads as well lest people see those areas as being police-free free-rein zones. I can think of a few roads south of Algonquin and near Parry Sound that could use a more consistenty robust presence. It might even help cut down on the motorcycle injury and fatality toll out there.
Last edited:
