CHP issues more citations

[wannabehp]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/01/3519405/driver-advocates-suspect-fiscal.html

Another interesting article from our lovely media. :hitwall:
What do you guys/gals think?

[HonkingAntelope]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/01/3519405/driver-advocates-suspect-fiscal.html

Another interesting article from our lovely media. :hitwall:
What do you guys/gals think?

IMO, a lot of "it's about revenue" complaints would disappear overnight if freeway speed limits were set based on speed surveys (rather than legislative proclamation) like city streets are.

The current statutory maximums of 65 and 55 may have made sense back in the 60s and the 70s when cars came with carburetors and leaf spring suspensions, but any reasonably modern vehicle can easily and safely go 80mph+ on a freeway as long as traffic/weather/visibility permit it.

[LadyVol@330]

From personal observation, I believe that more people are disregarding the laws these days and doing what they want behind the wheel. Around town here, which is not CHP jursdiction, it's amazing what people will do to avoid going around the block when they are in the wrong lane to make the maneuver they suddenly want (so it seems). Either they are grossly not paying attention, or else make a sudden decision and decide to just go ahead and go where they please out of any lane. I am flabbergasted nearly daily! Citations are not generated for those who are law-abiding, and it seem so me that it's time for drivers to take note of that fact. Before I became involved with the CHP as a volunteer, I had no idea of all the safety issues out there and from what I see, the average driver does not either. Too bad we can't have "Every Fifteen Minutes" for ALL drivers!

I personally applaud increased citations because it shows that more miscreants are paying for the risks they take in possibly injuring themselves and others. Just because someone did not die in a crash does not mean that they live happily ever after --injuries can be torture for a lifetime. Besides that, the amount of property damage is staggering. Bring on the citation book when needed!

[bcjack]

More crappy drivers who only care about themselves.
Higher awareness of the more crappy drivers.
More community outrage about crappy drivers.

Equals...More citations.

[AyatollahGondola]

The current statutory maximums of 65 and 55 may have made sense back in the 60s and the 70s when cars came with carburetors and leaf spring suspensions, but any reasonably modern vehicle can easily and safely go 80mph+ on a freeway as long as traffic/weather/visibility permit it.
That's presuming that most speeding tickets are being issued in zones compatible with the speeds you mention. I don't know that they are, but it might at least make interesting conversation

[5246MPD4now]

I think Jim Carrey said it best in Liar Liar

"Stop breaking the law, asshole!"

I feel that this applies...

[HonkingAntelope]

That's presuming that most speeding tickets are being issued in zones compatible with the speeds you mention. I don't know that they are, but it might at least make interesting conversation

The article has a pie chart that makes the distinction between freeway speeding (subject to VC22348b, VC22349a/b, and VC22356b) and city speeding (mostly VC22350).

I think Jim Carrey said it best in Liar Liar

"Stop breaking the law, asshole!"

I feel that this applies...

There are tens of thousands of laws governing different human behavior. What are the chances you didn't break at least one? :)

[HonkingAntelope]

From personal observation, I believe that more people are disregarding the laws these days and doing what they want behind the wheel. Around town here, which is not CHP jursdiction, it's amazing what people will do to avoid going around the block when they are in the wrong lane to make the maneuver they suddenly want (so it seems). Either they are grossly not paying attention, or else make a sudden decision and decide to just go ahead and go where they please out of any lane. I am flabbergasted nearly daily!

When certain laws make violators out of the majority of otherwise law-abiding folks on the way to work, is it any wonder that most people eventually get the idea that it's no big deal to break the law?

[JCH]

IMO, a lot of "it's about revenue" complaints would disappear overnight if freeway speed limits were set based on speed surveys (rather than legislative proclamation) like city streets are.

The current statutory maximums of 65 and 55 may have made sense back in the 60s and the 70s when cars came with carburetors and leaf spring suspensions, but any reasonably modern vehicle can easily and safely go 80mph+ on a freeway as long as traffic/weather/visibility permit it.

I think you would be surprised what a survey reveals. I can guarantee you there would be a lot of freeways reducing the limits to 60 mph. A survey is not practical on a freeway where traffic is flowing at 30 MPH for several hours per day due to traffic congestion.

I have no doubt modern vehicles can handle speeds in excess of 80 MPH. However, modern day drivers on the whole cannot. That is why you still read the paper about traffic collisions where speed is a factor.

[LadyVol@330]

When certain laws make violators out of the majority of otherwise law-abiding folks on the way to work, is it any wonder that most people eventually get the idea that it's no big deal to break the law?

My view on the laws is that if people weren't behaving so ridiculously in the first place, we wouldn't need the law! Notice how there are more and more laws as time goes on. If the citizens don't like the laws, they need to talk to the lawmakers, not the enforcers of the law. Even they (officers) get disgusted with all these laws. :tape:

[Vinnie]

Just referring to the article, let's crunch the numbers.

SacBee- CHP writes 200,000 more tickets in a year's time!

You do realize that there are 6,000+ uniformed CHP Officers throughout the entire State of California, right? Account for those who don't do road patrol, that leaves you about 5,000, roughly. 200,000 tickets, divided by 12 months, is 16,667 extra tickets per month, and when divided by the number of road patrol officers, that's 3.3 extra tickets per officer, per month.

Everywhere I've ever worked, even the non-ticket writers will scratch 5-10 tickets per day. An extra three tickets per month? Seems to me like that could be a very minor up-tick, a statistical anomaly, which is being overblown by the media (big shocker, there).

Let's also factor in that 2/3 of the increase covers citations written for the new cell phone / mobile device laws. For better or worse, they were passed in 2009 (the high-ticket year in question), and followed up with a ton of targeted enforcement for those laws, and cell phone task forces, etc. Is it really all that surprising that with new (and easy-to-spot) laws in place, and with everyone from the Legislature to the NHTSA to the DMV telling our Commisioner to crack down on the cell phone scofflaws (in the name of safety...), your average Officer might write three extra tickets per month, when that same guy normally writes more than 100 tickets per month?

Last point... why would the author of this article go after the CHP, specifically? The Department gets no money from citations it issues, with that money flowing into the Counties or Cities in which the violation occurred, instead. Do folks really think that CHP Officers are really gunning for their host Counties to have better funding, so their Sheriffs can continue to try and take our jobs from us? :think:

If it's in the Bee, written about the CHP, and it doesn't make sense, it might just be media sensationalism.

[SCHUMACHER]

Don't break the law and you won't get a ticket. Enough said.

[HonkingAntelope]

My view on the laws is that if people weren't behaving so ridiculously in the first place, we wouldn't need the law! Notice how there are more and more laws as time goes on. If the citizens don't like the laws, they need to talk to the lawmakers, not the enforcers of the law. Even they (officers) get disgusted with all these laws. :tape:

I don't know about Gov. Brown, but Schwarzenegger openly treated traffic enforcement as a state's revenue stream. Back in the day, he proposed using red light cameras to record driver speeds to tack on an extra charge to help close the budget gap, and he vetoed the bills to reduce the fines for a right on red without complete and utter stop (If only I had a dime every time I remind people that currently the law treats rolling through a right turn on red at 2mph the same as blowing through a red light without slowing down) and to explicitly prohibit cities from charging VC violations as administrative violations (a few cities did that since the cities only get pennies on the dollar from those $300+ fines unlike admin violations that give a much better cut to the city, lower fines + no points for drivers).

Legislative process is a waste of time as long as the government holds a vested financial interest in status quo.

[Mac]

Just referring to the article, let's crunch the numbers.

SacBee- CHP writes 200,000 more tickets in a year's time!

You do realize that there are 6,000+ uniformed CHP Officers throughout the entire State of California, right? Account for those who don't do road patrol, that leaves you about 5,000, roughly. 200,000 tickets, divided by 12 months, is 16,667 extra tickets per month, and when divided by the number of road patrol officers, that's 3.3 extra tickets per officer, per month.

Everywhere I've ever worked, even the non-ticket writers will scratch 5-10 tickets per day. An extra three tickets per month? Seems to me like that could be a very minor up-tick, a statistical anomaly, which is being overblown by the media (big shocker, there).

Let's also factor in that 2/3 of the increase covers citations written for the new cell phone / mobile device laws. For better or worse, they were passed in 2009 (the high-ticket year in question), and followed up with a ton of targeted enforcement for those laws, and cell phone task forces, etc. Is it really all that surprising that with new (and easy-to-spot) laws in place, and with everyone from the Legislature to the NHTSA to the DMV telling our Commisioner to crack down on the cell phone scofflaws (in the name of safety...), your average Officer might write three extra tickets per month, when that same guy normally writes more than 100 tickets per month?

Last point... why would the author of this article go after the CHP, specifically? The Department gets no money from citations it issues, with that money flowing into the Counties or Cities in which the violation occurred, instead. Do folks really think that CHP Officers are really gunning for their host Counties to have better funding, so their Sheriffs can continue to try and take our jobs from us? :think:

If it's in the Bee, written about the CHP, and it doesn't make sense, it might just be media sensationalism.
See - there you go, attacking biased, sensationalistic journalism with facts and common sense! :badgrin:

Excellent post, Vinnie. It's laughable to think that the cities/counties would have any ability to put pressure upon the CHP to write more tickets to increase their revenue (since the CHP gets absolutely zero revenue from citations issued).

The CHP does not set speed limits (maximum or prima facie), nor does the agency have any part whatsoever in conducting the traffic engineering surveys upon which prima facie speed limits are based.

3.3 extra tickets per officer, per month is statistically insignificant. That's about one extra ticket per officer for every five days worked. I certainly wouldn't call that a dramatic uptick.

[NWCYNC]

Good 'ol Sac Bee.:rolleyes:

[cjincognito]

IMO, a lot of "it's about revenue" complaints would disappear overnight if freeway speed limits were set based on speed surveys (rather than legislative proclamation) like city streets are.

The current statutory maximums of 65 and 55 may have made sense back in the 60s and the 70s when cars came with carburetors and leaf spring suspensions, but any reasonably modern vehicle can easily and safely go 80mph+ on a freeway as long as traffic/weather/visibility permit it.

Stopping distances get longer, and you out drive your headlights at 70 mph. With speed limits at 70 or below we still have thousands of people running into other things, cars and worse, people on the freeways. Allowing them to go even faster? No thank-you. If you want to drive your shiny new car with fuel injection, coil over struts, big fat, low-profile road gripping tires to high velocities...rent some track time and don't endanger my family thank-you very much.

[Mac]

When certain laws make violators out of the majority of otherwise law-abiding folks on the way to work, is it any wonder that most people eventually get the idea that it's no big deal to break the law?
The laws don't make violators out of them - their driving habits do. A law doesn't make a person into a violator anymore than an unlocked door with nobody around makes them into a burglar.

By the above post, are you suggesting that it would improve the situation to abolish speed limits, remove all traffic control devices/signals and just count on common sense and human kindness, rather than enforcement of traffic laws, to ensure traffic safety? Personally, I find the very thought frightening beyond words.

[alexfarrington]

When certain laws make violators out of the majority of otherwise law-abiding folks on the way to work, is it any wonder that most people eventually get the idea that it's no big deal to break the law?

I've seen many 'otherwise law-abiding folks' on the way to work that display a shockingly blatant disregard for the rules of the road every day.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen to traffic in LA for one day if NOBODY committed an infraction - maybe someone at a think tank or university has built a model to study this very thing.

But the fact remains that we all have a great deal of latitude and discretion out there. Should I go to bed early enough to get plenty of sleep and not have to hit the snooze button in the morning? If not, do I hit the snooze button and risk being late? If so, do I skip breakfast in order to make it to work on time? If not, do I drive outside the limits of the law to get my (irresponsible) self to work on time? If so, will I maturely accept the consequences of that decision when an officer initiates an enforcement stop?

And then of course the officer's discretion comes into play... but only after the violator has made a ton of choices and exercised (or failed to exercise) a bit of their own beforehand.

[AyatollahGondola]

While I'm certain that a county could request stepped up enforcement as a whole, I'm not sure that it could be alotted by the CHP in such scope as to increase the county income. I know Sac County stepped up its' own enforcement of infraction related offenses, and those carry a much higher rate of conviction than do most speeding tickets. And they can do it somewhat covertly. Code enforcement and parking tickets spiked considerably in Sac City and the county, and one specific target was unregistered vehicles, because the muni's get a double bite on the same cite. Also, opposing those is quite a bit more cumbersome for the defendant, having to go through some hoops before you can even get before an actual courtroom.
Speeding tickets on the other hand would be less lucrative in comparison. The code enforcement people were writing up a hundred cites per day here, and the parking patrol, although I never thought to break it down by the day, was raking in over 2 million per year here. With those types of expectations, the CHP would be seen as an insignificant income generator

[Mac]

While I'm certain that a county could request stepped up enforcement as a whole, I'm not sure that it could be alotted by the CHP in such scope as to increase the county income....
Sure, the county could request it - but I will unequivocally tell you that the request would not even be considered by the CHP if it was for the purpose of revenue generation. It's not a matter of whether it could be allotted (which it couldn't, given staffing issues) - it's a matter of whether it would be allotted (which it wouldn't, because the CHP is a public safety agency, not a revenue generating machine).

The misinformed, sensationalistic media and the conspiracy theorists can hint, allege, posit, theorize or outright accuse the CHP of anything they want. The simple, unvarnished truth is that the CHP receives no money from the citations they write or the arrests they make, and are not beholden to the wishes or desires of any county or municipality. If enforcement is stepped up in a particular area or toward a certain violation, it's because there is a traffic safety issue that has manifested itself. Whether anybody wants to believe it or not, revenue generation does not figure into the picture in any way, shape or form.

[HonkingAntelope]

Stopping distances get longer, and you out drive your headlights at 70 mph. With speed limits at 70 or below we still have thousands of people running into other things, cars and worse, people on the freeways. Allowing them to go even faster? No thank-you. If you want to drive your shiny new car with fuel injection, coil over struts, big fat, low-profile road gripping tires to high velocities...rent some track time and don't endanger my family thank-you very much.

I don't know about you, but I never had any problems with outdriving my headlights during daytime and good weather. Sarcasm aside, having one speed limit for daytime and a separate one for night time makes a lot more sense than expecting everyone to drive during bright sunny day at the same speed as they would at nighttime with pouring rain on top.

As for folks crashing into stuff, a small percentage of drivers are incapable of safely operating a vehicle at ANY speed other than 0mph. If all speed limits were dropped in half by legislative proclamation, it wouldn't change the situation one bit. It's just that not all of us belong to that category.

By the above post, are you suggesting that it would improve the situation to abolish speed limits, remove all traffic control devices/signals and just count on common sense and human kindness, rather than enforcement of traffic laws, to ensure traffic safety? Personally, I find the very thought frightening beyond words.

Whoa, I never said anything about doing away with speed limits and traffic lights. I merely suggested setting freeway speed limits at the level the 85th percentile of drivers find reasonable and prudent just like the way city streets are posted.

[JCH]

Whoa, I never said anything about doing away with speed limits and traffic lights. I merely suggested setting freeway speed limits at the level the 85th percentile of drivers find reasonable and prudent just like the way city streets are posted.

I think what you don't realize is the 85th percentile would probably be 65 mph if not a bit less on some freeways.

[cjincognito]

Whoa, I never said anything about doing away with speed limits and traffic lights. I merely suggested setting freeway speed limits at the level the 85th percentile of drivers find reasonable and prudent just like the way city streets are posted.

I think what you don't realize is the 85th percentile would probably be 65 mph if not a bit less on some freeways.

I can cite many streets in this state where the 85th percentile is WAY too high. Then there are other factors...i.e. the forces going on inside the cabin while your vehicle is toolin' down the road at much velocity. Sure the airbags may save your head from popping open on the steering wheel, but the g-forces of your brain experiences can be just as fatal. Enter Dale Earnheart (RIP). When I saw that collision happen, I certainly did not believe that would be a fatal one. And he was in a MUCH safer car, with a roll cage, 5 point harness, helmet, etc. Speed kills!

Now, if you want faster speeds, find a way to accelerate and decelerate people without introducing g-forces and we can start talking about making high speed safe.

[HonkingAntelope]

I can cite many streets in this state where the 85th percentile is WAY too high. Then there are other factors...i.e. the forces going on inside the cabin while your vehicle is toolin' down the road at much velocity. Sure the airbags may save your head from popping open on the steering wheel, but the g-forces of your brain experiences can be just as fatal. Enter Dale Earnheart (RIP). When I saw that collision happen, I certainly did not believe that would be a fatal one. And he was in a MUCH safer car, with a roll cage, 5 point harness, helmet, etc. Speed kills!

Now, if you want faster speeds, find a way to accelerate and decelerate people without introducing g-forces and we can start talking about making high speed safe.

While crashing head-on into a brick wall or a parked vehicle may be your preferred way to slow down a moving car from 60+ to 0mph, gentle application of the brake pedal always worked great for me, and I've never heard of anyone having their airbags deploy when slowing down this way. :lol::lol::lol:

As for 85th percentile speeds being "too high", it may be that the survey was conducted under far better conditions. Besides, it's not against the law to slow down if you don't feel comfortable going at a certain speed.

[jadams]

By the above post, are you suggesting that it would improve the situation to abolish speed limits, remove all traffic control devices/signals and just count on common sense and human kindness, rather than enforcement of traffic laws, to ensure traffic safety? Personally, I find the very thought frightening beyond words.

+1

[KingFrankSam]

Besides, it's not against the law to slow down if you don't feel comfortable going at a certain speed.

Actually, it can be.

[cjincognito]

While crashing head-on into a brick wall or a parked vehicle may be your preferred way to slow down a moving car from 60+ to 0mph, gentle application of the brake pedal always worked great for me, and I've never heard of anyone having their airbags deploy when slowing down this way. :lol::lol::lol:

As for 85th percentile speeds being "too high", it may be that the survey was conducted under far better conditions. Besides, it's not against the law to slow down if you don't feel comfortable going at a certain speed.

Seen too many head ons and mangled bodies to even look at the joke you were probably intending.

And I know I can slow down...it's everybody else I don't trust.

[Vinnie]

HA, if we've learned anything from the current system of laws, it's that you're as likely to be able to legislate that people use common sense as you would be to try to codify common sense into written law. Folks have been trying that for years, and it can't be done. for two perfect examples, look at the child restraint laws over the past several years (VC 27360, et al), and all the new cell phone rubbish that came out over the past three years.

the basic speed law was the last "successful" venture, and even that doesn't make sense. I can't tell you how many times I've testified, where the cause of the collision was "unsafe speed" or VC 22350.

"How fast was P-1 driving?"
"At the time of impact, probably around 25 MPH. Before applying the brakes, she stated 45 MPH, although it was likely slightly faster than that."
"And what is a safe speed for that roadway, Officer?"
"The posted speed limit is 45, and there were no conditions, aside from regular traffic, which would cause anyone to adjust speed. However, considering traffic on the road was stopped, the safe speed was zero."
"Well, Officer, you can't have a safe speed of zero, so I find your conclusions to be faulty."

:hitwall:

[Gittinready]

"Well, Officer, you can't have a safe speed of zero, so I find your conclusions to be faulty."


Next time, try responding, "Well Counselor, I find your face to be faulty."
Let them try that one on for size.

I guess we need a "Fail to stop in time" law. :noidea:

In the spirit of the thread, it never ceases to amaze me how the sacbee vilifies us. Especially with something like citations issued where the CHP is completely separated from any funds drawn from their issuance. Craziness. Vinnie said it well, 3.3 tags per officer is a pretty low bump in activity.

[Vinnie]

In Ohio, after my wife got cited for crashing on a patch of black ice, I learned their "catch-all" PCF is "Failure to Control."

Nice, simple, and tidy. I like it.

(I still hate that guy for signing her up after a black ice crash, though!!)