Alex Esplin wrote:
On 8/21/07, Mister E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The rest is fairly true. Citations are a revenue generator. Has been
that way for the last couple of decades I've had dealings in this area.
Originally meant to be a deterrent, citations are now viable income
streams for most cities and townships... main purpose of so called photo
cops. Provo City has become more aggressive with this aspect the last
little while, in that they will issue citations to everyone involved in
an incident traffic wise ... meaning no more true accidents. Most Provo
occifers that I have discussed it with dislike the mandate the mayor has
handed down.
While I am not a fan of the idea of citations as a revenue generator,
I _am_ a fan of citing all parties involved IF (VERY IF) all parties
were partially responsible.
Case in point: Earlier this summer my wife was in an accident while
turning left from 900 S. to go north on State St. in south Provo.
According to the law, she is at fault, and was cited. However, the
guy that hit her never even tried to slow down or avoid her, meaning
that he most likely didn't even see her. He was cited for not
watching the road. (I obviously don't know the terminology used in
his citation). According to the traffic laws, my wife was totally at
fault. However, if the guy who hit her had been paying attention,
there would have been no accident. Situations like this are exactly
IMHO the reason for citing anyone who can be held partially
responsible for an accident. As a result, my wife is now _much_ more
careful when making that turn, and I would hope that the guy who hit
her pays a little better attention to the road (I know I would).
well, in this case I would cite both. In a few other cases, I would
not. For example, a while back, a feller crossed in front of me while
running a red light 2 blocks from the Provo police station. Except for
the near heart attack and adrenaline rush, all was well. He was too busy
talking on his cell phone to notice the red light thingies hanging from
the pole in front of him. I still pulled him over and told him sternly
to watch the road and never to use his cell phone again while driving.
I made it clear he could have killed someone all for the convenience of
talking to someone. Based on his reaction, I could tell it made a huge
impact, so I concluded the conversation and went on my way (I was late
for my own meeting, so didn't have time to mess with the situation too
much). But with such rules of engagement handed down from politicians
interested in revenue only, it set's bad precedent. When you complete
academy, and obtain a position, you are sworn in as a peace officer
(public safety blah blah blah), not a revenue generator :)
Plus... it saves folks insurance charges and stress when a citation is
not issued (only when applicable of course).
But my inquiring mind wants to know if this became a legal hit and run
or just one for insurance purposes?
Mister Ed
ps - recent studies show that cell phone users, while driving, have the
same reaction time as do legally intoxicated drivers, so this is no lite
thing for me personally... and I would have probably done differently
above had it happened recently, and I was in a position to issue a
citation. However, it's the only real life instance I could share at
this point.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
