Thursday May 26, 2016
Jump to content
And that, Mr. Aal, is an easy but sophomoric and false meme: When the violators of the principles of safe driving are compelled to pay the costs of enforcement it relieves the safe drivers from having to pay for that for which they are not at fault. Revenue collection by police to pay for enforcement of laws is a lot fairer than requiring the community at large to pay for the carnage caused by doofuses with no respect for the safety or rights of others. My own small town is illustrative: We have a main highway through the middle of our town, four lanes wide with a suicide lane in the middle but no parking lane, one mile almost perfectly straight. No room for an officer to pull anyone over, many businesses and driveways on one side of the street, many fatal accidents until we installed four radar cameras. We've had I think one fatal accident since. And the revenue generated by the speed cameras pays for our patrol contract with the county Sheriff. We are one of two towns in the whole State with a positive cash flow and no need for local taxes. Now, thanks to the AZ-AG ruling, we are going to see a tremendous increase in fatal accidents, and in our taxes to pay for public works and law enforcement, and our cash flow will go negative. I see no increase in our "liberty," which I hold in high esteem, as a result of this ruling.
Huh? That's your point? Sounds to me like the CPS presence between MP235 and 240 is accomplishing its objective. OTOH, "as a former (P)olice (O)fficer," did your training ever let it sink in that traffic law enforcement in some areas -- curvy and steep mountain roads, for example -- contributes to distracted driving and thereby increases the number and severity of accidents?
One quibble, Mr. Jones: The revenue generated by the tickets and all the surcharges and all the rest of it just barely approaches but does not exceed the break even point. This is why (for example) the Beeline is not patrolled on a daily basis. They are too short-handed due to budget constraints to patrol every road every day. They swap around regularly, paying more attention to areas of high risk of dangerous driving.
Can you think of any reason why the law-abiding folks who drive the Beeline should be forced to pay for the damages caused by dangerous drivers who think the law has no purpose beyond profit, when the dangerous drivers can be made to pay for the law enforcement that reduces dangerous driving?
Can you describe a location approaching Corvair Curve where an officer can set up to catch speeders that would not require chasing them into the curve? Do you have sense enough to understand the distraction imposed by the presence of an officer at the side of the road, when drivers need to concentrate on the road ahead and not their rear view to see whether they are being followed by that officer?
In short, Ted, do you have the brains God gave a goose?
Under your thesis the security cameras at convenience stores should never be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution because a cop didn't witness the criminal act. And it appears to me your thesis would require hiring several thousand more officers and would turn us into a police state instead of a surveillance state.
Oh. You've never gotten a ticket there, but it is not because you obey the traffic laws designed to protect you and everyone else from dangerous driving; rather, it is because you think you are smarter than the cops.
Can you explain to me the difference between your attitude and the criminal predator who thinks he is smarter than the cops?
Does it have anything to do with the liberal attitude that no one should suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions versus the conservative attitude that no one ELSE should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions?
“This straight stretch begs the drivers who have been driving the curvy mountain roads to finally put their foot down on this; probably the safest five miles of road in Arizona.”
It’s all the road’s fault, for being safe. Right, Ted. The road made ya do it, and those mean ol’ DPS officers picked yer pocket.
So the guy who think government should force us all to be responsible for those who can't or won't be responsible for themselves believes government should butt out when it makes HIM responsible for putting others at risk by his irresponsible driving.
Typical liberal. Totally incapable of accepting personal responsibility.
But you do it all the time, Ted. Okay, here: Source: Wall Street Journal: "17.4%: Including state and local taxes, this was the average effective tax rate for profitable companies with at least $10 million in revenues in 2010. If unprofitable companies are included the average worldwide effective tax rate can rise as high as 22.7%.
$242 billion: This is the amount of corporate income taxes the GAO says was paid in 2012, citing Office of Management and Budget estimates. That figure compares to $845 billion collected in social insurance taxes and $1.1 trillion collected in individual income taxes. Since the early 1980s, corporate income tax has accounted for about 6% to 15% of federal revenue." And it is those corporations, Ted, that accounted for 95% of the jobs in the economy (excluding government wonks who produce nothing).
Got lots of empathy, Ted. That doesn't equate to permission to be robbed blind by a rogue occupation government.
No, you didn't, Ted. You barely paid for your own.
Last login: Wednesday, May 11, 2016