Police Action

[Melkai]

A thought occurred to me earlier today, would justice be best served if the police force no longer were required to police the roads?. If the task of enforcing the rules of the road could be passed to another organization could this possibly free police resources for the task of investigating and preventing 'regular' offenses. Obviously I am not condoning handing responsibility for all offenses involving motor vehicles over to a new organization, as offenses involving increased risk such as high speed chases, drug searches, armed passengers, etc clearly require the intervention of highly trained and skilled personnel. Instead I am considering handing responsibility for offenses such as defect notices, speeding, drink driving, reckless driving, etc over to an organization which can curb such behavior without incurring the high financial cost of police resources.

Feedback on this idea will be greatly appreciated and as always it is within the realm of possibility that I am completely misguided in my views and that by glaring oversight I have failed to consider important information, in which case illumination as to the error of my views will be warmly welcomed.

 

[BlazeTheVampire]

The cost of maintaining a police force is a double-edged sword, here. On one hand, they cost a lot. But on the other hand, the police force rakes in more money annually than is given to them in salary.

Not to mention, you'd still have to pay the poor saps that handle the less important offenses. It would be the same amount of money, just heading to a different place.

 

[Melkai]

Very true, however I believe that the cost of utilizing highly trained and well equipped police officers would be greater than the cost of utilizing specialized regulatory officers whom don't require the training or equipment. My vision likens traffic officers to parking inspectors, the reason police don't investigate illegal parking is that it would unnecessarily consume resources.

 

[number2301]

Good god, traffic wardens are the worst jobsworths out there, I couldn't imagine the chaos if people like that were allowed to police traffic.

Certainly in England anyway our traffic police are quite separate from normal police and as such you'd expect that they were trained appropriately for the job they're doing.

 

[nmmoore13]

I agree. The whole road industry should be privatised.

 

[Zombie_King]

Exploding speed bumps.

 

[Melkai]

I'm not certain the idea of total privatization of the road industry is the answer, no further motivation is required to encourage traffic infringement notices to wander from punitive measure to tools of revenue generation. As for other areas regarding the roads privatization may help in covering large construction costs however this leads to an increasing disregard for 'unprofitable' roads as toll roads are built. (an example for fellow Australians, the cross city tunnel. I would most certainly be concerned should privatization of traditional police activities be considered a viable option.

 

[mark_n_b]

I agree. The whole road industry should be privatised.

That's, in a word, crazy.

The government steps in to manage or supervise any industry that cannot be left to private interests because of the risks to the population. Private agency may go too far in law enforcement efforts, I wouldn't want a mercenary telling me how I should drive, and they'd still need gov't approval to take that action (making them a subsidiary policing agency anyway) which leads to the question: what's the point?

Fact is, police have to patrol, not for finding traffic violations, but as part of monitoring the community for ANY violation. Again: what's the point?

Given the number of criminal offenses that actually happen during a beat cop's shift is it really such a drain on resources to have them write a ticket or two between the coffee and driving around casually?

As for investigative policing (say to take down drug deals or find murderers or something) that is a wholly different kettle right there, taking responsibility away from beat cops won't impact that side of the order too much.

 

[Downside]

If you had a seperate entity purely for traffic offenses it could become a problem. Whats to stop say a routine check turning into a crazed gun fight and high speed chase? what do the seperate traffic wardens do then?

They would either get shot and possible killed because they were not trained for the situation or just run away like pansies and hope the offenders get cuaght by the police, which would be alot more diffecult for the police to do as the offenders would be long gone by the time they have responded to the call.

Better recruitment policys might be the best way to ease the shortage. Make joining the police force seem like a more intersting career with good prospects and excitement, instead making out those who join seem like they are turning on their fellow peers and going to arrest all their family and friends for downloading a song from kazaa. (not saying this is how everyone views the police just a lot of people i seem to know)

 

[Melkai]

I am not doubting the need for police to patrol, however I do question the need for police to be present in radar or laser speed targeting operations as such an activity requires them to remain stationary, hence not merely ticketing in the midst of their usual activities.

As for the risk of a violent encounter with unruly motorists there is no preparation which can adequately cover the situation, short of all police officers wearing bullet proof vests (which I don't believe is common practice when giving traffic fines). It is unlikely that an individual will choose to fire on a police officer or other individual instead of receiving a fine.

As stated above apprehending and pursuing miscreants remains the sole task of the police and as such it was not suggested that traffic wardens engage in high speed pursuits (merely recording a license plate is usually sufficient to secure future arrests)

 

[Logan Westbrook]

If I understand your point properly, what you are suggesting is that instead of having the police patrol roads, we invent some new police and get them to do it instead?

 

[Downside]

Like I said, seperate traffic cops into their own force, with a lessened requirement for enrollment, and only get real police involved in traffic offenses when it's something serious like a car chase.

problem is most car chases start out as something minor like the driver getting pulled for a minor speeding offense, then they start panicking about the dead body in the boot and the bag of coke in the glove box so they speed off. well thats what happened to me anyway...

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I am not doubting the need for police to patrol, however I do question the need for police to be present in radar or laser speed targeting operations as such an activity requires them to remain stationary, hence not merely ticketing in the midst of their usual activities.

As for the risk of a violent encounter with unruly motorists there is no preparation which can adequately cover the situation, short of all police officers wearing bullet proof vests (which I don't believe is common practice when giving traffic fines). It is unlikely that an individual will choose to fire on a police officer or other individual instead of receiving a fine.

As stated above apprehending and pursuing miscreants remains the sole task of the police and as such it was not suggested that traffic wardens engage in high speed pursuits (merely recording a license plate is usually sufficient to secure future arrests)

Reminds me of Germany's enforcement. They still patrol local roads, but as I understand it cameras are deployed on a lot of highways. They record the numbers if the driver is too slow/fast and post the fine in the mail.

The problem I see with this is related to Downside's point. With such a system if a vehicle with improper registration passes by the police won't have as much information or ability to pursue the suspect.

There are also situations in which the suspect may be involved with an unreported crime that is difficult for such a system to check for(abuse, etc).

Where these "unneeded" cops would go after the plan was enacted, I do not know. It's not like all of them are needed as detectives. Many of them may not qualify, or be interested. The plan seems needlessly complicated.

 

[nmmoore13]

I agree. The whole road industry should be privatised.

That's, in a word, crazy.

The government steps in to manage or supervise any industry that cannot be left to private interests because of the risks to the population. Private agency may go too far in law enforcement efforts, I wouldn't want a mercenary telling me how I should drive, and they'd still need gov't approval to take that action (making them a subsidiary policing agency anyway) which leads to the question: what's the point?

Fact is, police have to patrol, not for finding traffic violations, but as part of monitoring the community for ANY violation. Again: what's the point?

Given the number of criminal offenses that actually happen during a beat cop's shift is it really such a drain on resources to have them write a ticket or two between the coffee and driving around casually?

As for investigative policing (say to take down drug deals or find murderers or something) that is a wholly different kettle right there, taking responsibility away from beat cops won't impact that side of the order too much.

The point is that the government ha sno right to own roads. Individuals would take better care of them. Better roads = more customers = more money. Better could be: safer (lower speed limits, more private cops), more scenic (trees along the sides and stuff), and better condition (who wants to drive on a road with potholes?).

 

[Melkai]

The point is that the government ha sno right to own roads. Individuals would take better care of them. Better roads = more customers = more money. Better could be: safer (lower speed limits, more private cops), more scenic (trees along the sides and stuff), and better condition (who wants to drive on a road with potholes?).

I don't agree with your assessment that individuals (or corporations/business, to go by your more customers qualifier) would take better care of them. They would only take care of those that suit their specific needs. Smaller 'individuals' would not have the funds to undertake a road construction and maintenance project on their own, therefore they become completely dependent on the nearest larger 'individual'. Movement of goods and services becomes completely controlled by whoever owns the particular road you need it moved across.

What's to prevent them from installing toll booths to offset their costs? What's to stop them from poorly maintaining a connection that leads to a town with a competitor? Who owns the roads to where people live? If businesses build them, you can bet they're going to be designed to get those people to the ones that funded the roads, and only the ones that funded the roads. Why give access to someone who isn't helping you maintain the road?

What you'd end up with is akin to local feudal systems run by corporations instead of nobility. What government, other than the aforementioned corporate-feudal one, would let their people suffer under those conditions?