Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that issuing moving violations deters dangerous driving behavior. The bottom line is that this decision does appear to be strongly linked to revenue. Perhaps not in a sinister way, but it seems like there may be an issue with funding and manpower. There are a couple of overlooked things about this that the Chief could have brought up; this decision will decrease the amount of cruisers that are on the roads at random times for issuing moving violations and in doing so will cut down on the PDs pollution, save gas, and cut down other expenses. We don't have a boom in new hires in the PD so those aren't necessarily bad things. The real problem is saying it has nothing to do with revenue when there are potential positives directly related to revenue that could be mentioned instead of using unsupported claims that it's going to lower road accidents and deaths. Obviously, absolutely saving lives should trump revenue, but when there's no substantial evidence of that actually working through a program like theirs...why leave out the good? It comes off as dubious when there are strong revenue positives that legitimately wouldn't have to do with the moving violations being issued, but rather a cut in expenses.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: