The SLTRib jumps aboard the evil status quo bandwagon
With State Representative Hansen's anti-ticket quota bill barrelling through the legislature, we knew it was inevitable that we'd hear from somebody in the print media, parroting the talking points of the evil pro-ticket quota faction, and arguing for preservation of the status quo. That's exactly the editorial that we got this morning from -- of all newspapers -- The Salt Lake Tribune. We'll skip the lead paragraphs and cut to the chief arguments, reeling them off one by one, offering our own brief rebuttal as we move along:
1) The "deterrence argument." "Last year, 285 motorists died on Utah streets and highways, according to the Utah Department of Transportation. Can you guess what the leading cause of highway fatalities was? That's right, speeding. At least 72 deaths were attributed to speeding last year, 23 more than in 2006. And traffic citations are a proven deterrent to driving at unsafe speeds."
We've heard the "intuitive" deterrence argument before; but have never heard any proponent back it up with sound evidentiary facts. It's our perception however that there exists very little actual legitimate research data on the subject, and that what data does exist argues against the proposition that traffic citations are a proven deterrent to driving at unsafe speeds.
In that connection we link this 2007 study from the State of Maryland, following the behavior of 3,739,951 Maryland licensed drivers over a period of a year. The study reached the counter-intuitive conclusion that "drivers who receive speeding citations are at increased risk of receiving subsequent speeding citations, suggesting that speeding citations have limited effects on deterrence in the context of the current traffic enforcement system."
While we don't assert that this Maryland study is necessarily dispositive of the issue, we believe it illustrates that the unsupported notion that traffic citations by themselves are a significant deterrence to unsafe driving is highly suspect.
And if there exist other studies which support the ticket quota proponents' propoposition, we believe the burden is upon the proponents to produce their data.
2) The "management argument." "And why shouldn't a manager, whether it's a newspaper editor or a factory supervisor or a chief of police, require a certain level of production from an employee? A quota, especially when traffic patrols are conducted in danger zones, assures that officers are earning their pay, and the public is being protected. "
We submit that law enforcement agency management already has a broad array of criteria available to monitor and manage personnel, without imposing fixed quotas upon police officers. A few of these are set forth in Ogden City's own performance evaluation criteria, of which ticket quotas comprise only one factor. These same measurement criteria are likewise available to all law enforcement agencies in Utah. Enough is enough, we say.
As the SL Trib editors suggest in their lead paragraphs, ticket quotas are repugnant to motorists, traffic officers and virtually everyone but the city treasurer. To deprive law enforcement management of this single management "tool" would in practice deprive county sheriffs and police chiefs of very little, and would greatly reduce the public perception, we believe, that the system is rigged to shake down Utah drivers for government revenue.
3) The "local control" argument. "It's also a bit ironic that the Legislature, which rails against federal mandates on states, would try to tell local officials and law enforcement leaders how to run their affairs. Not to mention hypocritical. Lawmakers don't want police supervisors telling officers how to do their jobs, so they propose a law that, in effect, is telling police supervisors how to do their jobs."
This is the craziest argument of all, in our opinion. As part of our state government system of "checks and balances," it's the job of the legislature to curb excesses in local government. When local governments apply state law in a manner contrary to fundamental notions of fairness and equity, as in the case of ticket quotas, it's necessary and proper for the state legislature to intervene and set things right. The banishment of ticket quotas by the state legislature would not be the equivalent of acts of the federal government to alter state laws and policies with superceding law and unfunded mandates. It's an analogy that doesn't simply fit the facts, and an illustration of the desperation of local governments who are threatened with loss of their very lucrative "cash cow."
Representative Hansen has an interesting take on this argument too: By banning ticket quotas, and returning discretion to the "cop on the street," the legislature will have achieved the ultimate in "local control." Our sworn police officers are charged with the ultimate in discretion every day they start their shifts. They have the discretion to make life and death decisions. Surely they ought to have the ultimate discretion whether to ticket a little old lady, who accidentally did a "California stop."
And if that's not enough to get you all riled up, check this out: Traffic Tickets Are Big Business... or this.
And what say our ever-thoughtful gentle readers?
Isn't it time that Utah joined the ranks of the dozen or so other enlightened states in the US of A, and banished ticket quotas once and for all?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
4 comments:
Your first point, Rudi, is excellent and it illustrates much of what is wrong with state legislation across the land [not just Utah]: acting in the absence of the research and evidence necessary to make an informed and sound decision.
As you note, about a dozen states have banned ticket quotas. Some for years now. That means there is a database out there that can, and should, be consulted by the legislature to add some meat to whatever decision it makes. Have traffic fatalities/injuries increased in the states that banned quotas? Or have they not? Have the states with bans experienced unhappy unanticipated consequences or have they not?
Seems to me, the burden of proof on this one lies on those making the argument, as the SL Trib does, that banning quotas would lead to more dangerous highways. If they can support that claim with evidence drawn from the experience of the states that have banned quotas, I'll have to rethink my views on this. But they, as you note, have not supported their claim. They've offered nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. Not good enough. For that kind of thing, we have the Republican wingnut Troika [Curtis, Buttars, Bramble]. We don't need the SL Trib editorial board too.
has the trib been talking to the ogden mayor
I don't know if these folks realize how short sighted their efforts could become. As the population turns more and more to mass transit, their cash cow will eventually dry up.
I wonder if these police chiefs have concidered how low they may have to drop their quotas, and if they've concidered other means of evaluating their officers in the future?
I also hope elected officials don't go spending money based on future projections.
Bill:
Fear not. The legislature is making noises about increasing the fares on public transit so that fares will carry a much larger part of the costs of operation. This will inevitably drive down the number of riders, putting them back in their cars. Requiring increasing expenditures on roads [which the legislature does not at all mind subsidizing endlessly], and increasing difficulties meeting federal clean air standards, and incurring fines for same, and costing more via lost days of work for respiratory illnesses. When gas goes to $5 a gallon plus [in current dollars] as it will, and the voters are screaming for alternatives, those alternatives will not be there thanks to legislators' continued shortsightedness.
Part of the problem is the election cycle. House members have a planning horizon of, max, two years, since that's when they'll have to run again. Senate members four years. Governors the same. Asking people whose reelection is on the line in two or four years to think ahead ten or twenty years requires statesmanship, which is in noticeably short supply in Utah [and most other states] these days. We're asking them to make decisions now that won't pay off in full for a decade or more. They are willing to do that occasionally, but not very often I'm afraid.
It's not just here. Japanese carmakers are eating Detroit's lunch these days, particularly with high MPG vehicles. Detroit has been resisting for years, screaming that they will go bankrupt if they have to make more fuel efficient cars. They're screaming it again now. And US share of US and world auto market sinks slowly in the west... again.
Post a Comment