Tucson, Arizona police are using mannequins (https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article216895890.html) to slow down drivers
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
How is placing a mannequin in a patrol car raising revenue?
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
Is enforcement of every law that carries a fine for punishment done only with the goal of raising revenue, or is it just the laws you don't like?
Quote from: US71 on August 30, 2018, 10:42:40 AM
Tucson, Arizona police are using mannequins (https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article216895890.html) to slow down drivers
Sounds like something to mock. I favor getting him lei'ed.
NJ did this on the Turnpike back in the 1990s.
I'm fairly certain Layton, FL has done with a couple times at the Monroe County substation with patrol car they park on the side of US 1. The dead giveaway is that it's a late 1990s Crown Vic.
Quote from: Brandon on August 30, 2018, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 30, 2018, 10:42:40 AM
Tucson, Arizona police are using mannequins (https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article216895890.html) to slow down drivers
Sounds like something to mock. I favor getting him lei'ed.
Go ahead
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2018, 12:53:03 PMNJ did this on the Turnpike back in the 1990s.
IIRC, the Maryland State Police did such way back when as well.
MBTA Transit Police put two full size cardboard cutouts of an officer in the "secure" bike parking area at the Alewife Station to deter bike thefts. They were actually very successful in reducing thefts, until the media got hold of the story and announced to the world that the officers were fake.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2013/08/12/mbta-police-bike-theft-prevention-backed-by-cutting-edge-psychological-research
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 30, 2018, 01:41:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2018, 12:53:03 PMNJ did this on the Turnpike back in the 1990s.
IIRC, the Maryland State Police did such way back when as well.
I recall seeing this on the Delaware Memorial Bridge approaching the toll plaza.
We had a wooden one in our town in Florida. We informally nicknamed it "Woody".
At first, the squad car looked like others...but it then looked a bit faded and wasn't quite up-to-date, which made it a giveaway.
I think various LE agencies in GA were parking empty patrol cars on expressways, but not going the extra step of putting mannequins in them.
A few years ago (sometime before 2016), I was with some friends in Rome, and we saw a police car parked in the grass with a mannequin in it around here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.236757,-75.4537506,3a,75y,70.45h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCqIW60Kz2V_f-ewYUeQX3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). We went by twice around lunchtime, and twice again in the early evening. We noticed that what looked like a person in the car hadn't moved at all during the afternoon.
Once in a while around Dallas I'll see an occasional unmanned police car parked in an odd spot for quite a length of time (a few hours, more than a day at times) that isn't there because an officer got out to investigate something, but none of them had mannequins or cutouts sitting in them. I don't know if it was to give the effect of a spot or area being patrolled or protected, or what it could have meant.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 30, 2018, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
Is enforcement of every law that carries a fine for punishment done only with the goal of raising revenue, or is it just the laws you don't like?
Yup, every one of them, not just the ones I don't like. If we really wanted to stop those behaviors, we'd at least take away the license, and then take them to jail.
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 01, 2018, 08:37:07 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 30, 2018, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
Is enforcement of every law that carries a fine for punishment done only with the goal of raising revenue, or is it just the laws you don't like?
Yup, every one of them, not just the ones I don't like. If we really wanted to stop those behaviors, we'd at least take away the license, and then take them to jail.
Fines unquestionably alter driver behavior. Look at NYC's speed camera program (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2017.pdf)–the only associated penalty was a fine to the registered owner; no summons, no points, no effect on insurance. In school zones where the program was in effect, excessive speeding (>10 mph over) declined an average of 60 percent, injury crashes declined an average of 15 percent, and pedestrian injuries declined an average of 23 percent. And you say that the fact that this was achieved while also being a net revenue source for the city is a
bad thing?
There are some infractions that are clearly dangerous and need to be controlled, but for which license suspension or jail time is completely disproportionate to the infraction. Why limit our only acceptable responses to two extremes? Why should our only option for someone who, say, rolls a stop sign be either doing absolutely nothing or suspending their license and jailing them? It's ridiculous.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 01, 2018, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 01, 2018, 08:37:07 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 30, 2018, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
Is enforcement of every law that carries a fine for punishment done only with the goal of raising revenue, or is it just the laws you don't like?
Yup, every one of them, not just the ones I don't like. If we really wanted to stop those behaviors, we'd at least take away the license, and then take them to jail.
Fines unquestionably alter driver behavior. Look at NYC's speed camera program (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2017.pdf)–the only associated penalty was a fine to the registered owner; no summons, no points, no effect on insurance. In school zones where the program was in effect, excessive speeding (>10 mph over) declined an average of 60 percent, injury crashes declined an average of 15 percent, and pedestrian injuries declined an average of 23 percent. And you say that the fact that this was achieved while also being a net revenue source for the city is a bad thing?
There are some infractions that are clearly dangerous and need to be controlled, but for which license suspension or jail time is completely disproportionate to the infraction. Why limit our only acceptable responses to two extremes? Why should our only option for someone who, say, rolls a stop sign be either doing absolutely nothing or suspending their license and jailing them? It's ridiculous.
And where are we getting the money to feed and clothe and house these now-criminals as they serve their prison sentence?
Benton County, AR has done the dummy thing along US 71 near Bella Vista.
As I've mentioned before, Johnson, AR used to hide behind the rock outcroppings on I-49 and nail lots of speeders...until the state told them they weren't allowed on state highways. Now the state police hide there.
If I recall, a town near me in NJ used to have a mannequin in an old patrol car sitting along a busy residential street.
The NJ State Police regularly place empty patrol cars/SUVs in the median of the Garden State Parkway. Sometime the same car would sit in that spot for days, lulling you into that false sense of security until day 3 or 4 when that car and its LIDAR would be very much staffed.
The small town of Choudrant, LA had one parked at the gas station on US 80 on and off for several years.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 01, 2018, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 01, 2018, 08:37:07 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 30, 2018, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
The random taxers salt the media with stories like this from time to time, part of preserving the myth that the goal of traffic enforcement is to actually get people to drive more slowly, rather than its actual goal, which is to raise revenue.
Is enforcement of every law that carries a fine for punishment done only with the goal of raising revenue, or is it just the laws you don't like?
Yup, every one of them, not just the ones I don't like. If we really wanted to stop those behaviors, we'd at least take away the license, and then take them to jail.
Fines unquestionably alter driver behavior. Look at NYC's speed camera program (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2017.pdf)–the only associated penalty was a fine to the registered owner; no summons, no points, no effect on insurance. In school zones where the program was in effect, excessive speeding (>10 mph over) declined an average of 60 percent, injury crashes declined an average of 15 percent, and pedestrian injuries declined an average of 23 percent. And you say that the fact that this was achieved while also being a net revenue source for the city is a bad thing?
There are some infractions that are clearly dangerous and need to be controlled, but for which license suspension or jail time is completely disproportionate to the infraction. Why limit our only acceptable responses to two extremes? Why should our only option for someone who, say, rolls a stop sign be either doing absolutely nothing or suspending their license and jailing them? It's ridiculous.
Yes it is a bad thing. Where does shit like that stop? If that's the case, why don't we have speed cameras everywhere? No thank you!
As for other poster who suggested people have their license taken away and hauled to jail, I don't necessarily agree with that either, but it depends on the number of penalties. I do not agree with any jail time for a traffic infraction. Waste of resources and time. If the offense was that bad, take away their car and license, but jail??
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 03, 2018, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 01, 2018, 09:48:28 PM
Fines unquestionably alter driver behavior. Look at NYC's speed camera program (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2017.pdf)–the only associated penalty was a fine to the registered owner; no summons, no points, no effect on insurance. In school zones where the program was in effect, excessive speeding (>10 mph over) declined an average of 60 percent, injury crashes declined an average of 15 percent, and pedestrian injuries declined an average of 23 percent. And you say that the fact that this was achieved while also being a net revenue source for the city is a bad thing?
There are some infractions that are clearly dangerous and need to be controlled, but for which license suspension or jail time is completely disproportionate to the infraction. Why limit our only acceptable responses to two extremes? Why should our only option for someone who, say, rolls a stop sign be either doing absolutely nothing or suspending their license and jailing them? It's ridiculous.
Yes it is a bad thing. Where does shit like that stop? If that's the case, why don't we have speed cameras everywhere? No thank you!
It stops exactly where our laws say it must stop. I say this constantly on this forum: all policy and design related to roads and driving is a balance of mobility and safety. There is no clear line, but we have to agree on a compromise.
I cited the speed camera program to show fines have a measurable impact on driver behavior without other punishments. This is fact regardless of your opinion on the program. Personally, I think the way it is administered is very reasonable, and its scope is limited enough. The "slippery slope" is only as steep as we make it.
You cannot make a decision like putting speed cameras on every road without political approval. As of now, that approval certainly doesn't exist.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 03, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 03, 2018, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 01, 2018, 09:48:28 PM
Fines unquestionably alter driver behavior. Look at NYC's speed camera program (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2017.pdf)–the only associated penalty was a fine to the registered owner; no summons, no points, no effect on insurance. In school zones where the program was in effect, excessive speeding (>10 mph over) declined an average of 60 percent, injury crashes declined an average of 15 percent, and pedestrian injuries declined an average of 23 percent. And you say that the fact that this was achieved while also being a net revenue source for the city is a bad thing?
There are some infractions that are clearly dangerous and need to be controlled, but for which license suspension or jail time is completely disproportionate to the infraction. Why limit our only acceptable responses to two extremes? Why should our only option for someone who, say, rolls a stop sign be either doing absolutely nothing or suspending their license and jailing them? It's ridiculous.
Yes it is a bad thing. Where does shit like that stop? If that's the case, why don't we have speed cameras everywhere? No thank you!
It stops exactly where our laws say it must stop. I say this constantly on this forum: all policy and design related to roads and driving is a balance of mobility and safety. There is no clear line, but we have to agree on a compromise.
I cited the speed camera program to show fines have a measurable impact on driver behavior without other punishments. This is fact regardless of your opinion on the program. Personally, I think the way it is administered is very reasonable, and its scope is limited enough. The "slippery slope" is only as steep as we make it.
You cannot make a decision like putting speed cameras on every road without political approval. As of now, that approval certainly doesn't exist.
" it stops where our laws say it stops" that's the beauty of laws though, they're made by man and man is imperfect. So my point remains valid. Where. Does. It. Stop. You make it sound so simple, but it isn't.
BTW, I am not arguing that your facts are incorrect. There's tons of way we can save lives at a certain cost.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 03, 2018, 08:29:32 PM
" it stops where our laws say it stops" that's the beauty of laws though, they're made by man and man is imperfect. So my point remains valid. Where. Does. It. Stop. You make it sound so simple, but it isn't.
BTW, I am not arguing that your facts are incorrect. There's tons of way we can save lives at a certain cost.
It's not simple, I said we have to find a compromise. But claiming that a few speed cameras in school zones is going to inevitably lead to speed cameras on every road is pure alarmism.
But one change always leads to another. Look at how the NYC cameras went. The legislature authorized a pilot program, limited to 140 locations and during school hours. The city acted like it was a permanent program is is now claiming the sky is falling because it didn't get reauthorized (thanks to political infighting, leading to Cuomo to somehow turn the law into an executive order), and before the reauthorization failed, the city was pushing to have it expanded in such a way that they could theoretically be posted nearly everywhere in the city, along with no restrictions on what hours tickets can be issues in (this is in effect what happened when it switched to executive order... if it's REALLY about school safety, why issue tickets when there won't be kids walking to/from school?). Seeing each issue in isolation as a one-time thing may be how engineers think, but it is not how advocates think. To them, each action is a stepping stone. They don't see the camera issue as "that's great, we got what we wanted, time to go home". They see it as "that's a first step, time to fight for the second".