Its a amazing how many people on this board don't realize that their opinion is just that's, their opinion and that it more often than not caters to only their selfish needs.
You want cops around when you need them but never when you dont? REally?
Now THIS is how you complain.
- Thread starter OpenGambit
- Start date
Its a amazing how many people on this board don't realize that their opinion is just that's, their opinion and that it more often than not caters to only their selfish needs.
You want cops around when you need them but never when you dont? REally?
Wow what an amazing concept, having a cop when you need them! I know my expectations are way to high! I'm sorry
I still think he's a paid shill (not saying that he is, just offering my personal opinion based on his posting history). He claims to make his money by daytrading but he barely participates in any other discussions. His full-time job is to defend questionable actions of our police services. It's well known that the police services pay both constables and civvie employess to do "community relations". As for turbo's arguments for the need for policing - it would be a lot cheaper and more effective to involve engineers than cops. The speed differential and many of the intersection accidents come because engineers were not really involved in infrastructure planning, especially when it comes to the speed limits and alternative traffic management.
Ye sinner! Go do your penance, say 5 Our Bill's and 10 Hail Julians and don't do it again if you want to be absolved!
Think you forgot to read the rest of the sentence there buddy.
Because you pulled the rest of the sentence out of you derriere. He only made an analogy to a retail store. If he had indicated what you are suggesting he would have said "the clerks should all be stocking shelves until it's my turn to cash out, and then they should all man the registers."
I don't think he said anything remotely similar.
OpenGambit
Banned
The way I see it. Turbo is generally saying, that the Police do allocate a lot of resources to "real crimes", unlike the overemphasis on traffic that a lot of people think happens.
Your nephew's experience seems to back up that within the police department the prestige is also with the "real crimes", and that cops also priorities those things over traffic.
Those are fairly consistent viewpoints.
The fact that your nephew writes 1 ticket a shift is really just a drop in the bucket. I see that more as a way to show that you weren't sleeping in your car all day more than revenue generation.
LGdrama
Well-known member
I dunno for me the minute there are less police radaring the streets it will be like a green light to cause anarchy on the roads for me
Def would be buying another street bike if that were to happen.
If my home got broke into on several different occasions i wouldn't be looking for the boys in blue to come dust my home for finger prints, or complaining about it via the media.
Alarm system
German Sheppard
Shotgun
Or move to a better community would solve the b&e issue.
THANK YOU for your post.
We keep coming back to your disconnection with reality, and in this last post of yours you make that break several times. I will point out each instance for one last time. The thing is, I don't believe you're stupid, I believe you are deliberately tying to obfuscate the issue so I'm obviously not going to have a lot of patience for your ongoing efforts to change the topic.
What I said: "...when they choose to ignore crimes because they've allocated too many resources to speed traps then something is really rotten in the system."
What you read: "...when they choose to ignore every crime because they've allocated all their resources to speed traps then something is really rotten in the system."
AGAIN, that is irrelevant.
Aside from the fact that that number is meaningless on it's own, it also doesn't have any merit in this discussion. I don't care if 0.0000000001% of the budget is designated to traffic enforcement. As long as an officer is not available to respond to every reported crime, then those resources are poorly allocated.
Note, this does NOT necessarily mean that we should stop efforcing traffic laws (just to get ahaead of your twisted interpretation of everything I say).
Here you really jump the shark. A couple sharks even! Way to raise the bar of irrelevance.
You are using the example of that crash of migrant workers to clearly suggest that if only the driver of that van had been ticketed for rolling through a stop at some time in the recent past, then the van wouldn't have blown straight through the stop sign like it did and all those lives would have been saved.
Clearly, ticketing him wouldn't have prevented anything. There is nothing traffic enforcement could have done to prevent that,nor any other crash that wasn't due to aggressive driving, even if they happened to be conducting a stop sign blitz right at that corner right at that time.
You then top that by suggesting that every collision should be attended to by a cop. All 55,000 of them. One every 9.6 minutes. That can be the only relevant reason for repeating those figures like a mantra. Hey that's all swell if you can afford it but once again you are sidestepping the discussion. This discussion is about the regular failure of the police to respond to criminal acts, not traffic accidents. The excess traffic enforcement has only been mentioned in this threat to contrast the lack of crime unit involvement, because everyone agrees (except you) that criminals represent a much more severe problem to society than speeders do.
Now you're just addressing your own talking points, nothing to do with the thread.
Before letting criminals run rampant, absolutely. It's a no-brainer to everyone but you.
You clearly are making no attempt to understand what others are complaining about, instead yapping on in defense of some argument that is purely you own invention. Before you reply again, please try to read what is being said without any prejudice so that you may understand the real problem as it is actually being presented.
What I said: "...when they choose to ignore crimes because they've allocated too many resources to speed traps then something is really rotten in the system."
What you read: "...when they choose to ignore every crime because they've allocated all their resources to speed traps then something is really rotten in the system."
AGAIN, that is irrelevant.
Aside from the fact that that number is meaningless on it's own, it also doesn't have any merit in this discussion. I don't care if 0.0000000001% of the budget is designated to traffic enforcement. As long as an officer is not available to respond to every reported crime, then those resources are poorly allocated.
Note, this does NOT necessarily mean that we should stop efforcing traffic laws (just to get ahaead of your twisted interpretation of everything I say).
Here you really jump the shark. A couple sharks even! Way to raise the bar of irrelevance.
You are using the example of that crash of migrant workers to clearly suggest that if only the driver of that van had been ticketed for rolling through a stop at some time in the recent past, then the van wouldn't have blown straight through the stop sign like it did and all those lives would have been saved.
Clearly, ticketing him wouldn't have prevented anything. There is nothing traffic enforcement could have done to prevent that,nor any other crash that wasn't due to aggressive driving, even if they happened to be conducting a stop sign blitz right at that corner right at that time.
You then top that by suggesting that every collision should be attended to by a cop. All 55,000 of them. One every 9.6 minutes. That can be the only relevant reason for repeating those figures like a mantra. Hey that's all swell if you can afford it but once again you are sidestepping the discussion. This discussion is about the regular failure of the police to respond to criminal acts, not traffic accidents. The excess traffic enforcement has only been mentioned in this threat to contrast the lack of crime unit involvement, because everyone agrees (except you) that criminals represent a much more severe problem to society than speeders do.
Now you're just addressing your own talking points, nothing to do with the thread.
Before letting criminals run rampant, absolutely. It's a no-brainer to everyone but you.
You clearly are making no attempt to understand what others are complaining about, instead yapping on in defense of some argument that is purely you own invention. Before you reply again, please try to read what is being said without any prejudice so that you may understand the real problem as it is actually being presented.
I dunno for me the minute there are less police radaring the streets it will be like a green light to cause anarchy on the roads for me
Def would be buying another street bike if that were to happen.
If my home got broke into on several different occasions i wouldn't be looking for the boys in blue to come dust my home for finger prints, or complaining about it via the media.
Alarm system
German Sheppard
Shotgun
Or move to a better community would solve the b&e issue.
Sure, that always remains an options regardless of whether the police get involved or not. But it can never replace their involvement.
Unless you suggest that victims of crime do their own investigation, prosecution and sentencing too? A bit of vigilante justice since the actual justice system doesn't seem to care?
Personally, I'd rather the cops did their jobs.
Actually...To me, the police force will never be understaffed while there is a single cop out there with a radar gun.
....would suggest otherwise.
OpenGambit
Banned
that suggestion would be silly because obviously if person is not staffed at traffic they would be staffed at "other crimes". unless the police department suddenly starts providing another public service.
whats the problem with just having cops patrol the roads ? pull over drivers that are breaking the law while DRIVING!
cops on the roads would be WAY more valuable than having them hiding behind fences and bilboards and bushes.
they would actually be pulling over the bad drivers who dont signal, cut people off, incorrect merging techniques, refuse to clean the snow off their cars and so on.
they would also be mobile, so they can react to emergency calls faster. just design Cop routes similar to bus routes.
they only reason they would not want to do this, is becasue speed traps, and seatbelt blitz's are known cash grabs, and an easy days work
cops on the roads would be WAY more valuable than having them hiding behind fences and bilboards and bushes.
they would actually be pulling over the bad drivers who dont signal, cut people off, incorrect merging techniques, refuse to clean the snow off their cars and so on.
they would also be mobile, so they can react to emergency calls faster. just design Cop routes similar to bus routes.
they only reason they would not want to do this, is becasue speed traps, and seatbelt blitz's are known cash grabs, and an easy days work
I read nothing of the sort. You are reflecting what YOU read, not what I did.
Then you should be happy. Toronto cops have not abandoned investigating crime in order to man speed traps any more than they have abandoned speed traps in order to investigate crime. They're balancing resources to deal with the multiple issues that affect quality of life and safety in the big city.
So where is the problem? After all, you yourself say that they shouldn't necessarily stop enforcing traffic laws. Or is it that you want them to stop enforcing those laws that you want to be able to break with impunity?
Are you sure about that? If so, you're denying basic human nature.
Deterrence value is based on probability of getting a ticket combined with the cost of the penalty associated with that ticket. While specific deterrence effect will vary by individual, there's plenty of research out there to show that receiving a ticket (or even just seeing others receive tickets) in a given area does in fact modify driver behaviour for at least a short period of time in that area.
If someone gets a ticket, or sees others getting tickets in a given location, or even just sees a regular police presence in a given area, that person will tend to treat that area like a hot stove top and adjust their actions accordingly. That applies to me, to you, and to that van driver
Did I say that every collision should be attended by a cop? No. Again, it's you reading into my words that which is not there.
This discussion is about appropriate allocation of police resources. The fact that a collision occurs in Toronto every few minutes erves to highlight the fact that people are making driving errors on those roads. Often those errors are caused by drivers deliberately breaking traffic laws. In addition, crash severities are often compounded by by drivers deliberately choosing to breakk traffic laws.
Those crashes do result in financial harm, physical injury, and death, and to a far greater extent than any stolen TV set. The ONLY deterrent against those who would deliberately break traffic laws (and in doing so increase risk of crash) is a police presence and enforcement. In that sense, putting the brakes on aberrant drivers and riders is more critical than tracking down a stolen TV set or other minor low level property crime.
Last edited:
Maybe the issue isn't with being under staffed.
You have it all on Toronto roads. You have regular patrol cops in marked and unmarked cars out driving around looking for anything and everything. You have traffic cops out driving around in both marked and ghost cars looking primarily for traffic offences.
You also have traffic cops staked out in problem areas identified by incident tracking, collision frequency, and public complaint frequency, just the same as you have umarked plain-clothes and old-clothes cops staked out in certain areas for their investigations. You want those "hidden" ones out there to deal with those who first look around to see if they see a cop before choosing to deliberately break one or another law.
EXACTLY.
So why did you bandy about your (bolded) stat that TPS is overwhelmed by "collisions that occurred every 9.6 minutes",when at least half of those are forwarded directly to collision reporting stations directly from dispatch?
Ah, yes. The ol' T-logic at work again. You just keep on misrepresenting the facts with your smoke and mirror tactics (as usual). It only exposes you as the Wizard of Oz (.....well, Wizard of GTAM, anyway) that you really are.
Last edited:
Where did I use the word "overwhelmed"? Well?
And to think that you accuse me of misrepresenting things when you continually distort the words and meaning of anything I post.
Your sig line is just one example of your pathetic and bitter pettiness.
Yes, I did say that. I've also said that it's no more acceptable for hooligan riders and drivers to endanger the lives of impaired drivers than it is for impaired drivers to endanger the lives of others, including hooligan riders and drivers.
Of course you don't choose to seize on that. But then again, distortion and stalking personal attack is your stock in trade, isn't it?
Last edited:
Fixed
I want some front row concert tickets.
People complain about how others drive and then complain some more when the rules are enforced. Hypocrisy, what an amazing concept.
Last edited:
