Ticket Quotas

I agree that my statement might seem to someone that safety and revenue were linked. However, I was not claiming that an increase in Automated Traffic Enforcement revenue generally results in an increase in safety. As Box Car has earlier stated, there are too many variables for such a relationship to be claimed. In the two studies that you referenced, the installation of ATE is claimed to have reduced safety.

It seems to be the case that it is the specific details of the implementation of ATE that determines whether or not safety improves a statistically significant amount. If the yellow light intervals are not sufficient and/or there is not an "all red" interval, then accidents might increase.

In the Montreal case, revenue was up over 100% and deaths were reduced 40%.

Something increased safety. One wonders what the change in deaths might have been if the Traffic Squad had not reportedly stopped writing tickets when their quotas were met.

Do we know that they didn't? You keep reading stuff into the press releases that just isn't there.

The squad simply works it's hours and goes home. They are assigned to places where they can scrape up revenue. As far as I know THEY don't have numerical ticket quotas, per se. Their administration is simply responsible for making that program profitable for the city so they target fertile areas where the roadway is conducive to speeding or other infractions.

The problem is that the (as you put it) 40% reduction in deaths likely has little, if anything to do with the ticketing program, which has been the point of all this.

I could claim that by washing my car I caused extra rain to fall. It doesn't make it true. It just means that it rains often enough that it seems that way.

I KNOW that there are a number of locations they regularly target where there have never been fatal accidents - they go after places where they can generate revenue;

Look at my examples above; One location was the one-way service road of a freeway where turnoffs are a third of a mile apart and where only industrial buildings are located, but which has a 28 mph (30 kph) speed limit - everyone goes at least 50, but is there any increased danger doing this?

The fact is that they hit the spot with a six car speed trap once, and once only. Why? Because they simply couldn't make the trap pay for itself.

Strangely, they do NOT hit up a major artery that goes past a local school where drivers exceed the 18 mph school zone limit and I know that there have been a couple of accidents over the years; Why? Because it doesn't generate enough revenue.

Yet they DO sit in wait during rush hour on another service road where there are traffic lights every few blocks and I HAVE seen cops jump out into traffic to haul over drivers who were going all of 10 kph (6 mph) over the limit in traffic (as in the same speed everyone else is driving) - blocking a lane in order to issue their little pieces of paper.

How about places in Montreal like Notre Dame East which was redeveloped from a 4 lane street with parking and lots of unsynchronised traffic lights into a major 6 lane boulevard with limited access that is fed directly from the end of a freeway; But they kept the 30 mph speed limit - no wonder people go faster!!

RLC and speeedcam programs get canceled when there isn't sufficient revenue - would you suggest that it is all about safety? If it was then they'd leave these cameras in place and pay the costs; Or they would perhaps just leave dummy installations in place as deterrents if it really was too expensive. Yet strangely they don't.

The reality is that speed limits are set arbitrarily and in some cases way too low for safety and I've raised the matter in writing with the provincial minister of transport (who strangely is trained as a pharmacist).

There are proper, scientific methods and mechanisms for setting speed limits and the province and city simply ignore them in favour of using artificially depressed rates perhaps because they know no better way to entrap the public.

The people that DO have specific numerical quotas are the patrol officers and once the pressure is off they DO stop issuing tickets except in circumstances they can't ignore.

You can argue for safety all you want and it may be that there was a reduction in the number of deaths due to automobile accidents, but there is just no provable way for the traffic squad to claim responsibility for all of it.

If they banned cars from the city altogether the car-accident death rate would drop to zero. but then they'd get no ticket revenue and the public transit network would be completely congested with passengers and would be losing money at an unsustainable rate.

Maybe I'll wash my car today. The lawn needs watering.

Linking both is basically saying the same thing as the end justifies the means.

As a former LEO, both local and state, I have never operated under a quota system. There are plenty of individuals violating the law, so, in my opinion, quotas are unnecessary. But, I'm am sure that in some towns and cities they do exist. When I worked for a local department I was never told that I had to write X amount of citations per day, week, or month. With the state, I discovered that a certain amount of citations are expected, but it is not a quota. Let me explain. The state of Ohio uses a computerized system whereby they do traffic counts, as a lot of states do, and they can forcast that X amount of drivers will be speeding. Therefore, on some interstate highways they figure that in a given 8 eight shift, there may be 500 drivers that are speeding and on state routes there may be 150 drivers speeding, and on local roads there may be 30 drivers speeding. (This is just an example.) Then, they will put the computers to work and determine that on interstates 6 citations should be issued in an 8 hour period, 2 citations should be issued on state routes and maybe 1 citation should be issued on local roads. (Eash road throughout the state is different.) It is not difficult at all to cite 6 drivers on the intersate. We could cite people all day long for driving 70 in a 65 zone, but you don't want those people, they are usually moving along with traffic. The ones you are looking for are the 77, 78, 80, 85 mile per hour people. And, I have never written a citation for less than 75 miles per hour solely on speed. I have written citations for failure to wear a seatbelt or when the person had a radar/laser detector when a person was driving less than 75 mph. (Cops really despise those things. It is their opinion that you are trying to circumvent the law. That ticks us off when you do that.) Also, if you had a large number of deer crashes (which happen in the fall and early winter, the number of citations was a mote point. As long as you could account for your time, citations were unimportant. One night, I handled 7 deer crashes. No citations were issued and nothing was said about it. I have found from my experience and those of fellow officers that as long as you stay within 7-8 miles of the limit, you will not have any trouble with any state police agency. Small towns may be another story, but when I worked for a local department, we did not issue a citation until the person was 12 mph over. That was very generous, I think.

I hope that I was not reading anything into the articles that were not there. That is why I posted the links so that people could decide for themselves what was there.

I would have to say that the city I worked for worked in a similar way. They usually never cited for speeding less than 14mph over except on State highways and Interstates.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/933469--motorist-...

Did this article mention quotas or have I missed something?

1. Has anyone known of an officer being dismissed for not making his quota?

2. Has anyone known of a salesman being dismissed for not making his quota?

Having been in law enforcement for several decades myself I find the two answers very different. That being the case are they both really quotas?

Ah no pun intended

I know officers that have been placed into an undesirable prescient or put on crappy assignments because they did not play the quota game. However none was ever dismissed from the force.

I have always known assignments to traffic divisions to be voluntary. And those who did so did not need any quota to inspire them to issue citations, regardless of what the violation was for. Then you had those who loved different crimes. Though we all realize there are those little hick billy towns that have chiefs who can't drive home without nabbing at least one tourist with a citation.

Great stuff here, maddog.

When driving on interstate highways out-of-state, if you just watch and do what most locals do, you'll be fine. In Illinois, where I live, 12 mph over the limit is actually a fairly common speed and rarely draws enforcement on the interstates if all conditions (weather, no construction, etc.) are normal. But driving through Ohio on the Ohio Turnpike, I-90, or I-70, I notice that few in-state drivers go more than 5 mph over the limit, so I always figured that was the real speed limit.

That guideline's held me in better stead than any radar detector, which I've never used. They just give a false sense of security, they're one more pricey and quickly-outdated device, by the time they register it's often too late, and they do attract thieves and police enforcement. Radar detectors are a waste of money.

@ kurzemnieks

The fact that people drive past you as though you were standing still does not mean that they are necessarily driving in a dangerous or life-threatening manner. There are numerous factors to consider such as the quality and condition of the roadway, the automobile, the skill and experience of the driver, the amount of traffic, the weather conditions, the time of day, etc. For that matter, you could be the person who drives in the left lane at 55 m.p.h. in a 60, 65 or 70 m.p.h. zone.

In fact, I am not troubled by a person driving faster than me or the speed limit, but I am concerned when a person is weaving through traffic, cutting people off (especially me), braking short, tailgating (especially me), driving with a dog in their lap, trying to eat and/or drink while driving, or seemingly being significantly distracted while driving.

You have to keep in mind that speed limits are not solely for the purpose of safety. This is especially true on freeways, highways or interstates. On residential or congested roads the circumstances are obviously different. One factor in the speed limits was to control or reduce gasoline consumption. Another is trying to reduce the environmental impact of driving. Another is to control noise for surrounding communities.

That said, there are some roads that I would not drive the speed limit over because they are in such poor condition that I fear that I would either damage my car or simply increase the risk of having an accident. Speed limits cannot and do not take the place of common sense and responsible driving.

It can be argued that you are not doing your job if your summons activity is low. For example: if five officers are writing 10 tickets per tour in the same sector and you write none, one may conclude you are spending too much time behind the donut shop.
Black, no sugar, cream filled w/ sprinkles...to go please.

Eh, nothing surprising here in the slightest. There certainly are arguments on both sides to make quotas make sense.

The big issue is the fact that law is written in absolutes and reality does not always work well with absolutes.

Some cops write tickets only if the speed actually is above a particular threshold, and others may lie about a speed just to write a ticket to somebody because the cop doesn't like the way an individual looks. Or a cop could lie or simply be mistaken that somebody ran a red when in reality they entered the intersection on orange.

Quotas don't necessarily make sense, but it is not as big an issue with the police system as the simple his-word-against-yours with no physical evidence problem. While the legal system in the US is innocent until proven guilty, the police ticketing system is guilty until proven innocent if a cop decides that you are guilty of an offense. Quotas are a non-issue for me as long as we allow the current system of guilty until proven innocent with no witnesses other than the accuser.