Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening. The theory was introduced in a 1982 article by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling.[1] Since then it has been subject to great debate both within the social sciences and the public sphere. The theory has been used as a motivation for several reforms in criminal policy, including the controversial mass use of "stop, question, and frisk" by the New York City Police Department."
Would this work on the roads and freeways? Use electronic surveillance to ticket people for minor infractions like following too close and failing to use a blinker? I personally think something has to be done to snap people out of the funk they are in when they are driving and remind them they have responsibilities to other drivers to do it the right way.
I think allowing people to "get away" with anything on the road leads to DWI, texting while driving and other offenses which cost lives.
Assuming an improvement in driver behavior through additional surveillance and ticketing using the broken window theory as a justification is itself assuming that broken window theory is successful in the first place. That in itself is under a lot of debate and scrutiny.
I personally do not see how ticketing people for failure to use blinkers through electronic surveillance will cut down on DUI.
Assuming an improvement in driver behavior through additional surveillance and ticketing using the broken window theory as a justification is itself assuming that broken window theory is successful in the first place. That in itself is under a lot of debate and scrutiny.
I personally do not see how ticketing people for failure to use blinkers through electronic surveillance will cut down on DUI.
I've traveled to Germany many times and what I've noticed is heavy traffic on the freeway but across the board the drivers are much better. They use their blinkers, they do not tailgate. They back off and let people in. They use many different forms of electronic measures to prevent tailgating--I know that for sure.
So that's been my personal theory for years--right or wrong I think enforcing the minor points of driving leads to better drivers overall.
Bringing on an unnecessary police state like behavior in the form of ticketing on every little infraction will only serve to hurt the police department's relationship with the communities they serve. If people feel oppressed by the local government, whether justified or not, the worse the relationship. My feeling is that having a constant presence of police is what matters the most in maintain law and order.... eyes keeping watch.. but not necessarily handing out tickets like its candy.
I've lived in rural and urban areas of my home state of Texas. In the urban areas of the cities, the police can be quite aggressive. Its not completely their fault... a product of their environment. Both sides suffer from us vs them mentality. Its not so much the case in rural areas in which the County and Sheriffs are more common.... quite polite and often will give warnings assuming they don't feel you are a repeat offender. It is in their best interest considering that they often rely on the community as much a the community relies on them for maintaining a safe area (Large area... police are spread apart).
If you visit the busiest areas of Manhattan, NY, you will find police presence on each and every corner of every city block. Its a relatively safe area considering its population density... certainly a lower crime rate than most places I lived in with much less population.
Now living in NJ, the first easy step is to stop using unmarked police vehicles for traffic policing. The more police presence that is shown, the better it is for the rest of us. Unmarked traffic police only serve one purpose, to increase revenue from tickets... the people know it... and they see it as undermining their trust. For law biding citizens, it doesn't make them feel safe if they don't know the police are around.
Would this work on the roads and freeways? Use electronic surveillance to ticket people for minor infractions like following too close and failing to use a blinker? I personally think something has to be done to snap people out of the funk they are in when they are driving and remind them they have responsibilities to other drivers to do it the right way.
I think allowing people to "get away" with anything on the road leads to DWI, texting while driving and other offenses which cost lives.
Just my opinion.
That will turn into some money generating mechanism rather safety.
Some insurance company are given that options to their customer. Just look how many opt out of it. The bottom line is that it's all about personal responsibilities. Some people get it while others don't.
]Bringing on an unnecessary police state like behavior in the form of ticketing on every little infraction will only serve to hurt the police department's relationship with the communities they serve. [/b]If people feel oppressed by the local government, whether justified or not, the worse the relationship. My feeling is that having a constant presence of police is what matters the most in maintain law and order.... eyes keeping watch.. but not necessarily handing out tickets like its candy.
I've lived in rural and urban areas of my home state of Texas. In the urban areas of the cities, the police can be quite aggressive. Its not completely their fault... a product of their environment. Both sides suffer from us vs them mentality. Its not so much the case in rural areas in which the County and Sheriffs are more common.... quite polite and often will give warnings assuming they don't feel you are a repeat offender. It is in their best interest considering that they often rely on the community as much a the community relies on them for maintaining a safe area (Large area... police are spread apart).
If you visit the busiest areas of Manhattan, NY, you will find police presence on each and every corner of every city block. Its a relatively safe area considering its population density... certainly a lower crime rate than most places I lived in with much less population.
Now living in NJ, the first easy step is to stop using unmarked police vehicles for traffic policing. The more police presence that is shown, the better it is for the rest of us. Unmarked traffic police only serve one purpose, to increase revenue from tickets... the people know it... and they see it as undermining their trust. For law biding citizens, it doesn't make them feel safe if they don't know the police are around.
How is it feeling oppressed to leave following distance and using a blinker? And the highways are not everything in your life. It's just transportation and too many people die needlessly because people cannot follow simple rules. Unless you think someone dying is justified so you can feel free to drive anyway you like?
Let me ask - how is electronic ticketing for following too close or not using turn signals going to work exactly? Where are these sensors, how many will be necessary, and who's going to pay for them?
People are following "too close" during traffic. Cars have triple-turn-signals that may stop before machines can pick it up. What kind of future is this?
Often I think the opposite that government nor police forces have no authority to regulate vehicles nor human movement.
It would be okay for them to respond to an incident but they have no authority otherwise to be involved with vehicles other than their own.
That's a novel idea. You really think that I should be allowed to drive 100 through a school zone, 5 on the Interstate, abstain from the use of brakes or signals of any kind, and endanger your life and the lives of everyone else on the road, and the government has no legitimate authority to do anything but scrape up the bodies after I kill somebody?
Where would you ever get an idea like that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
