Tippecanoe Co.'s MRAP

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

That's Moms Who Need Some Action, IMHO.

 

[cobber]

Still waiting for the campaign roll-out, ala Sheriff of Nottingham.

(Go easy on the chain mail, chaps, that stuff is reserved for the King's men! Yoicks.)

 

[LarryC]

Are you serious? The erroneous strawman argument of "stats show this so and MRAP is therefore unnecessary" aside, GO TELL THAT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED! Sickening. Over 100 cops have been injured in Baltimore alone over the last few weeks. You sir, are an idiot.

First, I do respect police, my FIL was a city deputy, my nephew just retired from our cities police force, several good friends through my life have been officers. HOWEVER, Police do not statistically have a very dangerous job. The last year I could find data for was 2013, the list of the 20 most dangerous jobs ranked police as around 15th, right below Groundskeepers. At one of the sites I did find the 2014 police officer total fatalities (133), of those 29 were illness related, 30 were vehicle accidents, there were 49 firearm deaths (2 were accidental). The remainder were for various causes. The "estimate" of officers serving is from NLEOMF figure of “more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers" now serving in the United States.

This kind of reinforces Kirks reasoning that the "odds" of needing an armored vehicle in a small city like Lafayette is very remote. While I have never been a "sworn law enforcement officer", I have rode with and assisted some police officers.

The only complaint I have of the police (not the fault of the individual officers) is that in most areas, most of their resources is used to ticket drivers for non dangerous actions which draws revenue for the city/county/state. (No, I have not received a ticket in more than 25 years so that is not the reason). However when a car break in is investigated (which has happened to me), a report is made and no farther action is ever taken (IE: fingerprints, pawn shop information searched etc)., but an officer will sit by the side of the road for an hour waiting to catch a driver 5 or 10 mile over the speed limit.

By the way of the (98) officers INJURED in Baltimore 43 did receive treatment, and 13 did receive medical leave ~ so apparently the injuries were mostly not serious. And as for the families that have had a loss of a loved one, officers families are treated with great respect (as they should be). However their loss is no less than the farmers family (a far more dangerous occupation) nor any other families loss when a loved one is gone!

I feel confident no one on this site wants to see any officer injured or killed. However the discussion was not about that, it was that in reality most here don't believe the "MWRP" will in any way prevent this or decrease the chance of it occurring.

 

[T.Lex]

... in most areas, most of their resources is used to ticket drivers for non dangerous actions which draws revenue for the city/county/state.

Just a small counterpoint, in Indiana (at least, the jurisdictions I'm familiar with), ticketing for traffic violations does not generate meaningful revenue. At least, not enough to really offset the expenses. Generally, traffic enforcement improves safety and serves as a bit of a deterrent.

The latter of those notions is difficult to prove with statistics, so I can only offer anecdotal evidence. Traffic stops that lead to bigger crimes is a bit of a numbers game. The more vehicles LE pulls over, the more likely LE is to find evidence of other crimes (mostly drug-related). Of those bigger crimes, some percentage of those are the big drug mule cases that make the news.

 

[D-Ric902]

Just a small counterpoint, in Indiana (at least, the jurisdictions I'm familiar with), ticketing for traffic violations does not generate meaningful revenue. At least, not enough to really offset the expenses. Generally, traffic enforcement improves safety and serves as a bit of a deterrent.

The latter of those notions is difficult to prove with statistics, so I can only offer anecdotal evidence. Traffic stops that lead to bigger crimes is a bit of a numbers game. The more vehicles LE pulls over, the more likely LE is to find evidence of other crimes (mostly drug-related). Of those bigger crimes, some percentage of those are the big drug mule cases that make the news.

next time you get a chance, check the Amtrak schedule and walk a drug dog through the station 15 minutes prior.

 

[T.Lex]

next time you get a chance, check the Amtrak schedule and walk a drug dog through the station 15 minutes prior.

haha

No thank you.

 

[steveh_131]

Just a small counterpoint, in Indiana (at least, the jurisdictions I'm familiar with), ticketing for traffic violations does not generate meaningful revenue. At least, not enough to really offset the expenses. Generally, traffic enforcement improves safety and serves as a bit of a deterrent.

Got a source for ticket revenue? I don't buy that it's not meaningful.

It also doesn't improve safety.

 

[T.Lex]

From this site:
Where Does The Money From A Speeding Ticket Go?

But it also is consistent with my recollection:

State Courts: $49.00
County Courts: $18.90
City Courts: $2.10
Law Enforcement Fee: $4.00
Jury Fee: $2.00
Highway Work Zone: $0.50
Auto Record Keeping Fee: $7.00
Document Storage Fee: $2.00
Public Defense Administration Fee: $3.00
Judicial Insurance Adjustment: $1.00
Judicial Salaries Fee: $18.00
DNA Sample Processing Fee: $2.00
Court Administration Fee: $5.00

While all of the above go to .gov, they do not really stay with the local jurisdiction.

Infractional Judgments Fine: $99.50 (This is the part that stays in the locality.)

The State Board of Accounts has audit numbers. I think this link should work for the 2013 audit of Carmel:
http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B44584.pdf

I think Carmel has a pretty normal dedication to traffic enforcement - some might argue it is more zealous.

But the SBOA shows ~ $550k in fine revenue to the general fund and ~ $2M to the Court (which also has about $2M in non-operating expenses and a budget of ~ $800k). So, it nets out to the $550k to the City for tickets. For a total City budget of ~$100M, that's obviously less than 1%.

That's just 1 example. There may be some jurisdictions where ticket "revenue" is a greater proportion of the overall revenue, but this also does not take into account the costs of having the officer out there. For a true financial cost/benefit analysis you'd need to factor in the payroll cost of the officer on the road.

As for the safety angle, I will reluctantly fall back on the risky argument of common sense (for now). It is safer for vehicles to go 50 than 80 mph.

ETA:
State law about divvying up costs:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/titles/033/articles/037/chapters/007/

 

[steveh_131]

While all of the above go to .gov, they do not really stay with the local jurisdiction.

Ok, this much I agree with. I know that very little of it ends up with the local police department, but there's still a lot of money being raked in.

As for the safety angle, I will reluctantly fall back on the risky argument of common sense (for now). It is safer for vehicles to go 50 than 80 mph.

This may be true, but that is only one factor of many.

Is it safer for a driver to use his best judgment to decide a safe speed, or to behave as a robot and habitually drive 8 over the speed limit regardless of conditions?

Is it safer for a driver to focus on surrounding traffic and obstacles, or to divide his attention searching for speed traps?

Empirical data seems to indicate that speed limit enforcement hinders traffic safety.

 

[T.Lex]

Empirical data seems to indicate that speed limit enforcement hinders traffic safety.

My turn: have a cite/site for that?

ETA:
Not totally on-point, but...
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/08/in_praise_of_traffic_tickets.html
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=2386
http://web.missouri.edu/~leedn/Tickets_DLee.pdf
From 2012

...tickets significantly reduce accidents and non -fatal injuries.

 

[D-Ric902]

My turn: have a cite/site for that?

The empire, obviously

 

[T.Lex]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to D-Ric902 again.

Darned rep-Sith.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I heard there was douchebaggery and I came as quick as I could!!!

i have to admit when I saw this thread had been extended I was really excited. The first half was epic.
This second wind is pure disappointment, though. No one has tested Freeman in any new way. No cops have gone nanners over a butthurt then flipped out when they discovered they weren't smart enough to debate ATM or Freeman. Poor Robbymac is sitting there in the corner asking the perfectly legitimate question of if cops get MRAPS why can't he and where exactly does he go to get his baconMMMRAP.

I would like to remind everyone that, at one point, this thread contained a rap battle. Now we have nothing at all. Are the shades of INGO to be thus polluted?

I would like to know where to get one! If they are giving them away for free, surely there is a sign up sheet or something? I thought about getting a golf cart or something for the property, but an mrap would so much more betterer.
I cannot rap battle... but I will take anyone on in a dance battle. Especially if the winner gets a free mrap. Do you think Tippecanoe co. would be up for a dance battle? I hereby challenge them!

 

[steveh_131]

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

My turn: have a cite/site for that?

ETA:
Not totally on-point, but...
The hidden benefits of traffic tickets.
Traffic Enforcement Equals Crime Reduction | Hendon Publishing
http://web.missouri.edu/~leedn/Tickets_DLee.pdf
From 2012

None of these papers study the impact of no speed limits. This is key, because driver behavior changes drastically in the absence of speed limits altogether (as opposed to the slight increases/decreases in ticketing that you're comparing).

For a time in some areas of Montana, there were no effective speed limits. Accidents and fatalities dropped. When speed limits were re-instated, accidents and fatalities increased.

Same site that you sourced already:

For the last 5 months of no daytime limits in Montana, the period after its Supreme Court had ruled that the Reasonable and Prudent law was unconstitutional, reported fatal accident rate declined to a record low. Fixed speed limits were reinstated on Memorial Day weekend 1999. Since then, fatal accidents have begun to rise again.This begs the question, do people change the way they drive when there is no speed limit? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted – comparable to data collected from other western states. What changed? The two most obvious changes were improved lane courtesy and increased seat belt use. Did other driving habits and patterns change as well?
The lower–than–US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana's experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake. It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural by product of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.
The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, “people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”
The study on the effects of no daytime speed limits in Montana is clear. Traffic safety, if anything, actually improved without posted limits or massive enforcement efforts. Highway safety wasn't compromised nor can the lowest fatality rates recorded in modern times be ignored. Something happened, it was positive, and it needs further research to analyze what worked and why.

 

[ATM]

I expect better.

Ha! You're the one who brought it up. Like you haven't seen the hoards silenced when the topic turns hard toward liberty or economics and their most trusted memes fail them.

Who will lead them, then, who?

Will it be you? Cruising your new MRAP around Tippecanoe?

Will you still defend daylight saving time, too? The clocks and the schedules with which they screw?

Pound the table, good sir, pound the table.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I would support Kirk getting an Mrap. (or any citizen for that matter). And I will dance battle anyone for it to happen.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Will you still defend daylight saving time, too? The clocks and the schedules with which they screw?

Finally I have a valid justification for the MRAP--the defense of DST!

All other excuses are merely empire building, a fantasy empire.

 

[ol' Huff]

No man who supports DST works a labor or construction job. DST is strictly for golfers only.

Robby, TCSD doesn't answer dance off challenges unless the challenger supplies a sample video. The department doesn't have time to dedicate to mere puffery.

 

[T.Lex]

None of these papers study the impact of no speed limits.

Totally different issue, and at this point, totally hypothetical. The reality is we do have speed limits. A coinciding reality is that when police are around, enforcing not only speed limits but other traffic offenses, people drive "better" for the most part.

How about something from the last 10 years on urban/suburban streets?

As another derail (can you derail a thread about a wheeled vehicle?) it is not really a surprise to me that people drive "reasonably" in a no speed limit environment. Roundabouts require a certain amount of reasonableness to be safe, and they are safer (so far) than 4 way stops or 4 way stoplights.

 

[D-Ric902]