The Shotgun Blog

« Mexican migrant workers leave union | Main | B’nai Brith Canada criticizes anti-Israel student group over frivolous human rights complaint »

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Traffic Enforcement Quotas

There have long been rumours about police forces having "quotas" with regards to the number of tickets handed out for various traffic infractions. The Winnipeg Police Service recently told their officers that they need to keep up with writing traffic tickets in order to sustain past revenue levels.

Police Chief Keith McCaskill confirmed Friday that a memorandum was issued to all members of the force, including tactical squad members, reminding them that traffic enforcement is part of their duties.

Revenue from traffic tickets has dropped 70 per cent this year compared to 2008, said the chief.

While this isn't so much a confirmation of quotas, it does demonstrate that the police aren't as interested in public safety as they are about revenue collection. An example is given in the same CBC article of motorist Chris Albi, who was dinged with an $800 bill for doing nothing but peacefully driving to work.

Winnipegger Chris Albi isn't impressed with the fundraising initiative. She got three tickets Friday morning.

Albi was on her way to work a local food bank when she saw the flashing lights from a police cruiser in her mirror. The officer approached the car and Albi confessed she probably had rolled through a stop sign, and she told the officer that probably her insurance had expired at midnight the previous night.

The officer issued three citations in all and the whole affair took more than 40 minutes.

"If police are trying to build rapport with the community, well … there was no flexibility, not really any discussion," said Albi.

The tickets totalled about $800.

So who did Albi hurt by rolling through a stop sign, and by having expired insurance? In reality no one was harmed. By giving her $800 in tickets no one was prevented from being harmed either; but she has been victimized by the state demanding nearly $1000 from her for not obeying their arbitrarily enforced rules. Having expired paperwork is not a crime against any living person, it is only a crime against the concept of the state, which demands that you have the paperwork "or else".

No victim, no crime.

I love comments. I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on August 12, 2009 in Crime | Permalink

Comments

"While this isn't so much a confirmation of quotas, it does demonstrate that the police aren't as interested in public safety as they are about revenue collection."

Traffic laws exist for safety reasons, Scott. A lot of people consider them a nuisance, but the same is true of seat belts.

"An example is given in the same CBC article of motorist Chris Albi, who was dinged with an $800 bill for doing nothing but peacefully driving to work."

You mean like Madoff peacefully bilked thousands of people out of their life savings?

"The officer approached the car and Albi confessed she probably had rolled through a stop sign, and she told the officer that probably her insurance had expired at midnight the previous night."

Ouch! What a run of bad luck. After all, what reasonable soul could have expected this woman to move her brake pedal half an inch and take three whole seconds out of her life to prevent a possible collision? Or to have insurance in place to compensate the person she hit because she did not make the massive effort required to prevent that collision?

"'If police are trying to build rapport with the community, well … there was no flexibility, not really any discussion.'"

And so there should not have been; there was never any question as to what had happened, was there? Or did she think that she could bat her oh-so-battable eyes at the officer and sweet-talk her way out of it? Take your punishment like a grownup, lady, or walk. And next time, pay attention. Because that cross street may not be empty of traffic next time the next time she's babbling on the phone or rooting through her purse for her lipstick.

Preventing injury or death is more productive, and less expensive, than dealing with it after it occurs. But I suppose some types are simply too focused to consider such airy-fairy distractions as that.

Do you now understand, Scott, why several people on this board equate libertarianism with irresponsibility, immorality, and self-serving degeneracy? Do you not see how completely, even malignantly selfish these arguments sound? The flippant selfishness, the shallow pooh-poohing of risks and consequences, the utter lack of concern for one's fellow beings expressed in these opinions is not likely to attract more people to the fold. People are moral creatures, whether libertarians like it, or not.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 2:18:32 PM

One more reason the roads should be private as far as I am concerned. Private entreprise would have every incentive to keep the roads safe, but would be in less of a position to abuse their customers.

If you roll through a stop and hurt someone, then the criminal code should be adequately beefed up to deal with that. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping private enterprise from giving fines for breaking the rules.

You don't have insurance and total someone else's vehicle? Then you pay for everything out of your own pocket. If you don't have the money (or access to credit), and the other person does not have insurance for their own damages, well then they pay (for their own damages) out of their own pocket.

Personal responsibility; the ultimate consequence of libertarianism. The cons can't have it both ways. Either we're cold hearted and want a "dog eat dog" world, or we're preaching for a system that would be devoid of personal responsibility.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-12 2:53:18 PM

Hey Shane,

You're free to leave and read other blogs.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-08-12 2:53:54 PM

Did she have any prior warnings? Was this her first? How old is this person and did this person recently begin driving?

If this was a first offense and she is telling the truth about her insurance why not give a warning? "Pay attention. Nobody was hurt this time but its going to be in the computer for a while. If you get stopped after today and you still haven't gotten your insurance up to date you can face a big fine".

Whatever happened to good old fashion warnings?

I totally agree to privatizing roads.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2009-08-12 3:43:42 PM

It could also be that the government that hired (and can fire) the police are the ones that are concerned with revenue.

Posted by: Bob | 2009-08-12 3:47:16 PM

I wonder how the average "boots on the ground" cop feels about being relegated to the role of "tax collector?

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-12 6:10:47 PM

What a load of tissue-paper!

Give me a break - I would have tried to find more charges against her. Boo-Hoo

Posted by: Shawn | 2009-08-12 6:48:23 PM

Charles and Scott,

All I have to say is Amen.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-12 6:52:07 PM

Shawn, I have to disagree with your statement that traffic laws exist for safety reasons. Some of them do and many of them do not. However, this is about a well known quota system that usually kicks in towards the end of the fiscal year in BC. That equals extortion; no different than the Mafia.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-12 8:02:57 PM

“One more reason the roads should be private as far as I am concerned. Private entreprise would have every incentive to keep the roads safe, but would be in less of a position to abuse their customers.”

Of course. Private enterprise never gouges its customers. Oh, dear me, no.

“If you roll through a stop and hurt someone, then the criminal code should be adequately beefed up to deal with that.”

If you roll through a stop, that is sufficient for a fine. Otherwise why have the stop at all? Do you libertarians even understand the word “prevention”?

“Furthermore, there is nothing stopping private enterprise from giving fines for breaking the rules.”

And no reason why public authorities also shouldn’t give fines for breaking the rules.

“You don't have insurance and total someone else's vehicle? Then you pay for everything out of your own pocket.”

Except you’ll need the coercive power of the government to enforce that. Unless, in your government-less paradise, you also see a future for private marshalls and enforcers to strong-arm uncooperative clients into paying up. No, no potential for abuse there.

“If you don't have the money (or access to credit), and the other person does not have insurance for their own damages, well then they pay (for their own damages) out of their own pocket.”

No. The person who caused the accident will pay in full, unless he was not wholly to blame. If he does not have the money, I’m open to indentured servitude.

“Personal responsibility; the ultimate consequence of libertarianism. The cons can't have it both ways. Either we're cold hearted and want a "dog eat dog" world, or we're preaching for a system that would be devoid of personal responsibility.”

Those two things are not opposites. A dog eat dog world is what happens when there is no personal or social responsibility. You didn’t put a lot of thought into this post, did you, Charles?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 8:35:24 PM

"Hey Shane. You're free to leave and read other blogs."

Since your mini-campaign to get me blackballed didn't work, that's pretty much your only hope left, isn't it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 8:36:20 PM

Some traffic laws are about safety, some are not.

Writing someone a traffic ticket does not increase safety, since Ms. Albi wasn't being unsafe in the first place. It is likely that she rolled through the stop sign (which just means not coming to a complete stop) because there was no oncoming traffic. There is little evidence to suggest that getting traffic tickets leads to great changes in behavior.

The only victim in this story is Ms. Albi who is being robbed of $800 for her lack of compliance.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-12 8:37:52 PM

Personal responsibility; the ultimate consequence of libertarianism.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-12 2:53:18 PM

Absolutely.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-12 8:39:54 PM

Floyd, driving without insurance is not something you simply overlook. Even Bill Gates got nailed because his coverage had lapsed 15 minutes before he was stopped. (His coverage expired at midnight and he was stopped at 12:15.) Expired is expired.

Besides, how do we know the cop wasn't of a mind to give a warning, only to change his mind because the driver had a bad attitude? To judge from her reaction, she doesn't take her responsibilities as the operator of a motor vehicle with any great severity and would quite likely have brushed off a warning as a tiresome interference in her personal life. Perhaps now she'll pay more attention, which is the point.

By the way, privatizing roads would create monopolies. There's only one Broadway, one Highway 1, one Main Street. What are drivers to do if the owners are dicks? It's not like they can vote them out in four years. What then, Floyd? Or did you even think that far ahead?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 8:42:34 PM

"And no reason why public authorities also shouldn’t give fines for breaking the rules."

Yes there is, because government will make up whatever rules they want and force you to obey them whether you consented to those rules or not.

"A dog eat dog world is what happens when there is no personal or social responsibility."

Responsibly wouldn't go away with smaller government. In fact with less government there is more personal responsibility.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-12 8:44:53 PM

"Shawn, I have to disagree with your statement that traffic laws exist for safety reasons. Some of them do and many of them do not."

I presume you're speaking to me: Shane? Can you cite examples? Even if you can, are you prepared to argue that stop signs are there to generate revenue, with no thought of safety in mind?

"However, this is about a well known quota system that usually kicks in towards the end of the fiscal year in BC. That equals extortion; no different than the Mafia."

No. Extortion is when the victim has no choice. People who don't break traffic laws have nothing to fear. Your argument seems to be that cops are thugs because they do not always ticket to the limit of the law. But if they did so, you'd complain of jackbooted tyrants who never cut the working stiff a break. You can't have it both ways, Alain.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 8:48:21 PM

"Some traffic laws are about safety, some are not."

And, of course, the ones concerning controlled intersections are not.

"Writing someone a traffic ticket does not increase safety, since Ms. Albi wasn't being unsafe in the first place."

No, of course not. Driving through stop signs and red lights is just as safe as houses. Ever watched a lifeless corpse being taken out of a car in front of your house because someone "wasn't being unsafe," Scott? Do you even know what safety is?

"It is likely that she rolled through the stop sign (which just means not coming to a complete stop) because there was no oncoming traffic."

It is even more likely that you have no idea what happened and are trying to minimize Albi's actions so your arguments won't seem so insane. How about making sure of your facts before making with the outrage?

"There is little evidence to suggest that getting traffic tickets leads to great changes in behavior."

Weasel words.

"The only victim in this story is Ms. Albi who is being robbed of $800 for her lack of compliance."

Uh-uh. Sorry.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 9:03:09 PM

"[Personal responsibility; the ultimate consequence of libertarianism.] Absolutely."

Unless it involves...you know...responsible behaviour.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 9:04:27 PM

"Yes there is, because government will make up whatever rules they want and force you to obey them whether you consented to those rules or not."

Government is responsible to the people; its leaders can be forced out at any election. Corporate magnates are accountable to no one and can abuse you with impunity.

"Responsibly wouldn't go away with smaller government. In fact with less government there is more personal responsibility."

Do you even know what responsibility is? Because you've spent this whole thread defending some very irresponsible behaviour.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 9:06:37 PM

"Government is responsible to the people"

There is much evidence that shows that is a fantasy.

"Corporate magnates are accountable to no one and can abuse you with impunity."

I can choose to not do business with them, the same is not true of the government.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-12 9:11:12 PM

"There is much evidence that shows that is a fantasy."

Again, citation? Honestly, Scott, you're just trolling here. You're throwing out any old remark that comes into your head, whether it's unsupported or not. This entire thread is a provocation.

"I can choose to not do business with them, the same is not true of the government."

In the case of roads, if you choose not to do business with them, you walk. That is, provided you're not also on the outs with whoever owns the sidewalk.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 9:15:44 PM

"That is, provided you're not also on the outs with whoever owns the sidewalk."

They would have incentive to have me as a customer.

>>>Government is responsible to the people"

>>There is much evidence that shows that is a fantasy.

>Again, citation?

If you want to see example after example of the government not being "responsible to the people" look at my blog where I document it.

One quick example would be how millions of public dollars are being poured into the Museum of Human Rights currently being built in Winnipeg, even against strong public disapproval. They just don't care what you think, and they don't have to, you are forced to pay them.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-12 10:11:43 PM

Here we go again. Another "Shane Matthews" blog.
There's almost no point in coming here anymore.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-12 10:12:49 PM

The original JC, as difficult as it may be, ignore those you find annoying.

Posted by: TM | 2009-08-12 11:28:52 PM

"They would have incentive to have me as a customer."

And also to gouge the hell out of you. They know there's only one sidewalk outside your home: theirs. If you don't agree to pay their outrageous rates, what are you going to do? Leave the house in an autogyro? Whoops, someone owns that airspace, and their rates are even worse.

"If you want to see example after example of the government not being "responsible to the people" look at my blog where I document it."

You mean where you opine on it. If those "documented examples" are no better than what I've seen here, I'll pass. I prefer British humour.

"One quick example would be how millions of public dollars are being poured into the Museum of Human Rights currently being built in Winnipeg, even against strong public disapproval."

How strong? I've heard only a few mutterings, mostly on the Western Standard.

"They just don't care what you think, and they don't have to, you are forced to pay them."

You mean just like you would be forced to pay whoever owned the sidewalk/road in front of your house, the people who have no reason to care what you think either?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-12 11:41:56 PM

That a significant portion of traffic citations are for extra income to govt. coffers is a foregone conclusion. While Albi was being written up for her "grievous" crimes,how many breakins or other real crimes were taking place?

Posted by: jan bakker | 2009-08-12 11:47:22 PM

Shane- Is there not a way in BC to find out whether her insurnce really did expire a few hours earlier? I think here in Texas its all in their computer now. Mostly because of people with 6 month insurance cards who stopped paying after the first month.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2009-08-12 11:56:09 PM

We have a monopoly now do we not?

I would have to assume that roads would actually be expensive and owned corporately where everyone who gave up property for it would have a share. There might be some less important roads with single owners or owned by a few families I suppose.

Nothing would stop people from trying to get together and competing.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2009-08-12 11:59:43 PM

The original JC, as difficult as it may be, ignore those you find annoying.

Posted by: TM | 2009-08-12 11:28:52 PM

This is something you need to do if you participate on web boards :)

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:04:50 AM

"If you don't agree to pay their outrageous rates, what are you going to do?"

That is somewhat moot because I'm not advocating for all private sidewalks in this post. It's about traffic enforcement quotas and the incentive to write tickets to people who are harming no one, just going along thier way.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:08:50 AM

Posted by: jan bakker | 2009-08-12 11:47:22 PM

Winnipeg has been undergoing a rash of violent crimes lately; shootings every weekend, murders, innocent people killed, yet this is the sort of the thing the Chief of Police tells his people, "don't forget to write some tickets! We need the money".

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:10:38 AM

Private Roads Work
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/frazier3.html

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:12:27 AM

"Shane- Is there not a way in BC to find out whether her insurnce really did expire a few hours earlier?"

That's irrelevant, as the incident took place in Winnipeg. And any idiot can tell when their insurance is set to expire by looking at the tags on their license plate. In any case, the responsibility was hers, and she shirked.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:40:49 AM

"We have a monopoly now do we not?"

Yes, but access is free and everyone's allowed to use them. Even people like cyclists who don't pay road taxes.

"I would have to assume that roads would actually be expensive and owned corporately where everyone who gave up property for it would have a share."

Don't assume, Floyd; it's a dangerous habit. And what Scott is talking about is private companies owning and controlling the roads. Basically private toll roads. Private toll sidewalks, too, apparently, along with toll parks, I imagine.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:44:14 AM

"That a significant portion of traffic citations are for extra income to govt. coffers is a foregone conclusion. While Albi was being written up for her "grievous" crimes,how many breakins or other real crimes were taking place?"

Ah, the old canard that because more serious crimes exist than the one you were busted for, busting you was a waste of time. Guess cops are just supposed to ignore it when a law is broken in front of their eyes until the minimum body count is reached.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:48:17 AM

"Private Roads Work."

So do public ones.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:52:44 AM

@Shane Matthews: in case you are confused, private condo complexes routinely feature PRIVATE ROADS the use of which are usually far more functional than "public" roads. Ditto shopping malls. And some industrial and commercial parks. As well as many recreational and campground properties across the continent.

Posted by: JC | 2009-08-13 1:28:49 AM

"Shane Matthews: in case you are confused, private condo complexes routinely feature PRIVATE ROADS the use of which are usually far more functional than "public" roads. Ditto shopping malls. And some industrial and commercial parks. As well as many recreational and campground properties across the continent."

And how many of them are toll roads? How many of them city streets, or highways? The salient feature of private property is the right to exclude others, for any reason or no reason. In the case of condos or places of business, residence or employment there, or even business there, usually grants one unlimited access. And one has a choice as to whether to go there or elsewhere. That isn't the case with city streets.

I can't speak for where you live, but I find virtually every single street and highway in B.C., and even some of the Forest Service roads, to be at least the equal of the typical private driveway or parking lot.

P.S. I thought you said there was no point coming here.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 6:26:05 AM

"When I open my private road I will ban rage-aholic statist authoritarians."

And on that day, JC, Satan will be skating to work.

"Ever lived in a condo complex or visited one, Mr. Happy? Are all those who do "pathological"?"

Actually, I currently live in one, and one former council member certainly answers to that description. He keeps himself busy by shoving letters under people's doors urging the residents to topple the current management and join him in revolution. "From the desk of," if you please.

By the way, how exactly do you tend to screen for the rage-aholic statist authoritarians? Do you have some sort of biometric scanner that reads their brain waves? Or are you just going to go with your gut if no facts are in evidence? HRCs, I think I've found you a potential recruit.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 6:30:24 AM

Please refrain from insulting people participating in this thread.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 7:47:00 AM

Sorry Shane, that I called you Shawn. There are many traffic laws that actually create a danger, such as speed limits too low. However it seems that you are intent on defending the existing system come what may, so there is little point in arguing.

As for using traffic tickets as a source of income in BC I stand by what I wrote. I have seen more than a few times cops in town with their radar at the bottom of a very steep hill where one has to ride the breaks in order not to coast over the 50 km limit going down the hill. No one is flying at excessive speeds but due to gravity it requires diligence not to coast over 50 km. Funny that this always occurs at a particular time of year when they need to increase their revenue. I could provide many other examples, but the point is that this is not about safety.

I do not claim that there should be no traffic laws, but I am able to recognise that they are not all about safety. Yes, that is the claim but it does not make it true.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-13 11:42:32 AM

"Please refrain from insulting people participating in this thread."

Please refrain from insulting our intelligence. You do not have the right to blow through stop signs and red lights. You do not have the right to thumb your nose at the rules of the road in the name of liberty. You do not have the right to endanger others through carelessness, recklessness, or depraved indifference.

To maintain otherwise is to insult everyone who uses the roads, as if to say, "Die, dirtbag; I'm not going to stop even though the light is against me and you are in my way; I got places to go, things to do. I'll deke around you, missing you by perhaps a centimetre or two, and unless I hit you there is no victim; as to the state of your underwear, I make no avowals to the sturdiness of your sphincter. I'm really very sorry, but it is all about me."

Most people would be insulted by that, I think. I know I am.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:14:48 PM

A business entity that derives its profits from getting or letting people get from one place to another. I would assume that Greyhound is still in business because it does not make a habit of refusing to sell bus tickets.

Nothing wrong with tolls - probably lower than what we pay in taxes for them.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2009-08-13 12:18:26 PM

"You do not have the right to blow through stop signs and red lights."

Has anyone claimed that? Not me.

Some laws are about so-called safety, some are about revenue. Do you see the difference?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:20:33 PM

I actually didn't bring up the subject of private roads...

There are other ways to generate revenue besides tolls, though it does make more sense to pay for what you use rather than everyone paying for everyone. Someone who commutes an hour each way everyday and uses the roads more often should be paying more than someone who doesn't.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:24:20 PM

"There are many traffic laws that actually create a danger, such as speed limits too low."

The speed limits are not too low. Driving faster just means braking harder and more often. I used to drive about 20 over in my younger days; now I follow them on the nose. There is little, if any, difference in total travel time. But I notice a big difference in brake pad life and gas mileage.

"However it seems that you are intent on defending the existing system come what may, so there is little point in arguing."

Unless you can come up with a more damaging indictment than a policy of enforcing existing laws that have existed for decades, you're right; there isn't.

"As for using traffic tickets as a source of income in BC I stand by what I wrote. I have seen more than a few times cops in town with their radar at the bottom of a very steep hill where one has to ride the breaks in order not to coast over the 50 km limit going down the hill."

Or else downshift, let the engine do most of the braking and just tap the brakes for a moment every ten seconds or so. Works with standards and automatics (but standards are better, of course). By the way, I've never seen a speed trap at the bottom of a hill.

"No one is flying at excessive speeds but due to gravity it requires diligence not to coast over 50 km."

It requires diligence to drive, period. That's not a tricycle you're driving, my friend.

"Funny that this always occurs at a particular time of year when they need to increase their revenue. I could provide many other examples, but the point is that this is not about safety."

The selective enforcement may not be about safety, but the rule itself is. Properly speaking, they should enforce it to the limit at all times. If they are occasionally lax, a driver's growing accustomed to such lassitude is not a defence if they do get busted even so. Those who break traffic laws are perfectly aware they are doing so, and they have no good reason for doing so.

"I do not claim that there should be no traffic laws, but I am able to recognise that they are not all about safety. Yes, that is the claim but it does not make it true."

Can you cite examples? Remember, selective enforcement of a rule is not the same as whether the rule itself is motivated by safety or not.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:24:59 PM

"Has anyone claimed that? Not me."

You claim that running signs and lights is a victimless crime, therefore no crime. Since it is not a crime, ergo, it is legal. Oh, and it's "peaceful," too.

"Some laws are about so-called safety, some are about revenue. Do you see the difference?"

No, because you haven't provided any examples of any "about-revenue" laws. In fact, no one has. Not one.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:29:14 PM

"I would assume that Greyhound is still in business because it does not make a habit of refusing to sell bus tickets."

They're not the only game in town, are they? There's planes, trains, automobiles...

It's a bit different when you have a monopoly, and people either deal with you or do without.

"Nothing wrong with tolls - probably lower than what we pay in taxes for them."

"Probably"? You want us to embark on a radical change in policy based on an unverified "probably"?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:31:11 PM

"I actually didn't bring up the subject of private roads..."

Weasel words. You gave the idea your enthusiastic backing. You even quoted a reference.

"There are other ways to generate revenue besides tolls."

You mean...taxes?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:34:52 PM

"I do not claim that there should be no traffic laws, but I am able to recognise that they are not all about safety. Yes, that is the claim but it does not make it true."

Can you cite examples? Remember, selective enforcement of a rule is not the same as whether the rule itself is motivated by safety or not.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 12:24:59 PM

Yes.

http://freedommanitoba.blogspot.com/2008/12/fighting-traffic-camera-ticket.html

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 12:38:00 PM

1 2 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Traffic Enforcement Quotas

Comments