Ticket revenue?

[DonTom]

I know many in this forum think tickets are just to collect revenue.

But if that's the case, why do I see the "click it or ticket" advertisements on TV? I just saw such an advertisement from the State of NV on TV here. Air time costs money (even if it's only on cable and not on the air anywhere!) and if this has any effect, it will reduce tickets and revenue.

So why would the state of NV advertise only to reduce their revenue?

-Don- (Reno, NV)

[Eric]

I know many in this forum think tickets are just to collect revenue.

But if that's the case, why do I see the "click it or ticket" advertisements on TV? I just saw such an advertisement from the State of NV on TV here. Air time costs money (even if it's only on cable and not on the air anywhere!) and if this has any effect, it will reduce tickets and revenue.

So why would the state of NV advertise only to reduce their revenue?

-Don- (Reno, NV)

It's not a question of "think" - it's been proven; states and localities depend on ticket revenue to an enormous extent. If the revenue they collected in this way did not come in, it would be necessary to raises taxes.

But it's the same thing, isn't it?

Also, cops have to meet quotas for ticket issuance. What does that tell you? It's also been established that posted limits are frequently set well below observed 85th percentile speeds; in other words - set deliberately below the normal/safe flow of traffic. What other purpose could this have except to make "speeders" out of virtually every car on the road?

As for the ads - it's also common to see PSAs warning about "speeding."

[chiph]

The FCC requires TV stations to broadcast a certain amount of public service announcments (PSAs). They won't run them during the time a hit show is on, but you will see a lot of them at 2am.

Chip H.

[gail]

I know many in this forum think tickets are just to collect revenue.

But if that's the case, why do I see the "click it or ticket" advertisements on TV? I just saw such an advertisement from the State of NV on TV here. Air time costs money (even if it's only on cable and not on the air anywhere!) and if this has any effect, it will reduce tickets and revenue.

So why would the state of NV advertise only to reduce their revenue?

-Don- (Reno, NV)

??? Huh? I'm trying to figure out the connection here. Oh, I get it! Why are they spending money if they need money? Is that the answer to your riddle?

Too start with I do believe that PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS are free. Am I right? Well never-you-mind, becuase if I'm wrong one knos that it takes money to make maoney.

There are many people who are totally convinced that seat belts save lives. Therefore if there is a cost to advertizing - it justifies the means. Maybe seat belts do save lives, but sometimes they doen't -- seat belts can kill too. Shouldn't it be an individual's choice?

[DonTom]

Gail,

Where (and how) have you been?

" I'm trying to figure out the connection here. Oh, I get it! Why are they spending money if they need money? Is that the answer to your riddle?"

Why would they advertise so they can give less tickets and make less revenue even if the advertising is free?

"Maybe seat belts do save lives, but sometimes they doen't -- seat belts can kill too."

That's so rare that I don't think it should even be mentioned. Especially these days with the side air bags, etc.

" Shouldn't it be an individual's choice?"

I think so too. But you can have some strange laws when things are covered under a license. When you sign the driver's license it means you agree to the terms.

IMO, we should all have the legal right to kill ourselves anyway we wish, as long as it harms nobody else.

-Don- (in nice warm Reno)

[Rick]

I was wearing a seatbelt when this happened:



EMTs told me on the ride to the hospital that they thought it was a fatality when they rolled up. Instead they found me standing next to the car wondering why the base of my skull hurt so bad. No broken bones, but to this day I get headaches in that spot if I get stressed.

Without the seat belt, I would have been projected through the windshield and out of the vehicle. If you look, you will notice that the passenger front tire is sitting on an 10" rim -- that's to keep the car stable on flat ground because the chassis was warped by the impact.

Having said that, I consider most PSAs about tickets to be a PR move to justify fines in the mind of the public. If everybody thinks that not wearing seat belts is somehow bad (and it is, see above), then anybody stupid enough to not wear them SHOULD be stopped and fined. For my part I just figure they've earned whatever their stupidity brings them.

[DonTom]

"Having said that, I consider most PSAs about tickets to be a PR move to justify fines in the mind of the public. "

Why does any governmental service need such PR?

BTW, did that car have air bags?

What caused the accident?

-Don- (Reno, NV)

[Eric]

I know many in this forum think tickets are just to collect revenue.

But if that's the case, why do I see the "click it or ticket" advertisements on TV? I just saw such an advertisement from the State of NV on TV here. Air time costs money (even if it's only on cable and not on the air anywhere!) and if this has any effect, it will reduce tickets and revenue.

So why would the state of NV advertise only to reduce their revenue?

-Don- (Reno, NV)

??? Huh? I'm trying to figure out the connection here. Oh, I get it! Why are they spending money if they need money? Is that the answer to your riddle?

Too start with I do believe that PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS are free. Am I right? Well never-you-mind, becuase if I'm wrong one knos that it takes money to make maoney.

There are many people who are totally convinced that seat belts save lives. Therefore if there is a cost to advertizing - it justifies the means. Maybe seat belts do save lives, but sometimes they doen't -- seat belts can kill too. Shouldn't it be an individual's choice?

Amen, Gail - and good to have you back!

[Eric]

Hi Rick,

First, sorry about your wreck (but glad you came out unharmed)!

There's no question that wearing a seatbelt reduces your risk of injury, as well as the potential severity of the injury. However, it's equally true that eating a low-fat diet, exercise and maintaining ideal body weight reduce your odds of developing several major illnesses, several of which can either permanently debilitate or kill you.

Yet we do not (yet) fine the overweight; we don't ticket people who refuse to exercise - and we don't place surcharges on fatty/sugary foods.

I oppose mandatory seatbelt laws because (as with diet and exercise) I believe these are matters of individual choice; the consequences (if any) are born primarily by the individual making the choice. The argument that "society" has an interest because of the "social costs" - etc. - is a socialistic one that I reject. Because if accepted it means "society" (the state, its laws and enforcers) can intervene in almost any area of our lives - imposing restrictions (and punishments) on (and for doing) things it believes aren't "good for us."

I don't want to live in a Nanny State - and will fight against to the extent I'm able.

[DonTom]

"The argument that "society" has an interest because of the "social costs" - etc. - is a socialistic one that I reject. "

I also reject that reason. If it were based on that, we can spend hours talking about things that should be illegal because they can be dangerous only to the person doing whatever.

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it."
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy


-Don Quoteman

[gail]

I was wearing a seatbelt when this happened:



EMTs told me on the ride to the hospital that they thought it was a fatality when they rolled up. Instead they found me standing next to the car wondering why the base of my skull hurt so bad. No broken bones, but to this day I get headaches in that spot if I get stressed.

Without the seat belt, I would have been projected through the windshield and out of the vehicle. If you look, you will notice that the passenger front tire is sitting on an 10" rim -- that's to keep the car stable on flat ground because the chassis was warped by the impact.

Having said that, I consider most PSAs about tickets to be a PR move to justify fines in the mind of the public. If everybody thinks that not wearing seat belts is somehow bad (and it is, see above), then anybody stupid enough to not wear them SHOULD be stopped and fined. For my part I just figure they've earned whatever their stupidity brings them.

Now ain't that nice? When the purpose of driving is to crash than by all means wear a seat belt. Bravo! Do you wear protection in an elevator too. I hear that a drop is a killer. But then, we all know that the purpose of riding an elevator isn't to crash, don't we? And of course, the buses. I rode a bus once, and car ran a stop sign plowing into my side of the bus sending me sprawling with the end result of a broken leg. Sigh! No laws saying you must wear a seat belt on a bus. In fact, if still in effect, you can't even choose to wear a seat belt on a bus, because there aren't any.

With all frivolity aside -- I am glad that you survived your crash. My issue is not whether seat belts are safer or not, but does the law have the right to make us wear them? What next -- bath tub mat for all?

[Eric]

I was wearing a seatbelt when this happened:



EMTs told me on the ride to the hospital that they thought it was a fatality when they rolled up. Instead they found me standing next to the car wondering why the base of my skull hurt so bad. No broken bones, but to this day I get headaches in that spot if I get stressed.

Without the seat belt, I would have been projected through the windshield and out of the vehicle. If you look, you will notice that the passenger front tire is sitting on an 10" rim -- that's to keep the car stable on flat ground because the chassis was warped by the impact.

Having said that, I consider most PSAs about tickets to be a PR move to justify fines in the mind of the public. If everybody thinks that not wearing seat belts is somehow bad (and it is, see above), then anybody stupid enough to not wear them SHOULD be stopped and fined. For my part I just figure they've earned whatever their stupidity brings them.

Now ain't that nice? When the purpose of driving is to crash than by all means wear a seat belt. Bravo! Do you wear protection in an elevator too. I hear that a drop is a killer. But then, we all know that the purpose of riding an elevator isn't to crash, don't we? And of course, the buses. I rode a bus once, and car ran a stop sign plowing into my side of the bus sending me sprawling with the end result of a broken leg. Sigh! No laws saying you must wear a seat belt on a bus. In fact, if still in effect, you can't even choose to wear a seat belt on a bus, because there aren't any.

With all frivolity aside -- I am glad that you survived your crash. My issue is not whether seat belts are safer or not, but does the law have the right to make us wear them? What next -- bath tub mat for all?

Dee-licious!

Could not have said it better myself!

[gail]

Back to Don's original question or was that a statement? Why do they advertise - - you realize that Big Brother takes all the highway funds from every state - right? Then Big Brother decides how to divvy this up. Part of this is a good idea, i.e., California has lots and lots of highway money, but the Dakotas have very little. See the greatness of this plan. OK. But now Big Brother can put stipulation of who can have how much and what they must do in order to get the most that they can. I believe it is still 5 "safety" measures; 1. lower the BAC, 2. Primary seat belt usuage, 3. Low/lower posted speed limits, 4. Helmets for cyclist, 5. gas mileage.

[Eric]

Back to Don's original question or was that a statement? Why do they advertise - - you realize that Big Brother takes all the highway funds from every state - right? Then Big Brother decides how to divvy this up. Part of this is a good idea, i.e., California has lots and lots of highway money, but the Dakotas have very little. See the greatness of this plan. OK. But now Big Brother can put stipulation of who can have how much and what they must do in order to get the most that they can. I believe it is still 5 "safety" measures; 1. lower the BAC, 2. Primary seat belt usuage, 3. Low/lower posted speed limits, 4. Helmets for cyclist, 5. gas mileage.

A variant on "you gots to spend money to make money."

[Rick]

"Having said that, I consider most PSAs about tickets to be a PR move to justify fines in the mind of the public. "

Why does any governmental service need such PR?)

I believe that the PR is to create the impression in the public mind that such intrusive laws and enforcement of them is acceptable because somehow it's for our own good. Government thinks that without such PR, the public would rebel.

BTW, did that car have air bags?)

No, it did not. It predated airbags by several years.

What caused the accident?)

A young and inexperienced driver failed to look adequately before preceding at a crossroad where I had the right-of-way and he did not. He was uninjured (miraculously), but when the cops showed up he tried to argue with them about whether or not he did anything wrong. He got a ticket for his trouble and was nearly arrested -- or so I was told later. At the time I was strapped to a backboard and on my way to the ER -- EMTs couldn't believe I didn't have ANY broken bones.

[Rick]

I oppose mandatory seatbelt laws because (as with diet and exercise) I believe these are matters of individual choice; the consequences (if any) are born primarily by the individual making the choice. The argument that "society" has an interest because of the "social costs" - etc. - is a socialistic one that I reject. Because if accepted it means "society" (the state, its laws and enforcers) can intervene in almost any area of our lives - imposing restrictions (and punishments) on (and for doing) things it believes aren't "good for us."

I concur. I've always thought that, and indeed at the time of my accident laws requiring seat belt usage had not been passed. I thus can credit my own good sense for saving my life (perhaps with some divine intervention) instead of some idiot pandering politician seeking re-election.

Despite the obvious good of seat belts, I am not in favor of mandating good sense and healthy practices.

[Rick]

My issue is not whether seat belts are safer or not, but does the law have the right to make us wear them? What next -- bath tub mat for all?

I think not (as far as does the government have the right to make their use mandatory). I know we have posters from outside the US, but if you read the US Constitution and the papers of the founding fathers I think you will determine that government in our system doesn't exist to save people from themselves. Once you start down that road there isn't any logical stopping point, as Eric has pointed out.

Does that mean that a some people will die? Yes, but that's the cost of a free society. You shouldn't enslave the masses for the sake of those not smart enough to act in their own self-interests.

(Now, if THAT doesn't touch off a discussion...)

[Eric]

I oppose mandatory seatbelt laws because (as with diet and exercise) I believe these are matters of individual choice; the consequences (if any) are born primarily by the individual making the choice. The argument that "society" has an interest because of the "social costs" - etc. - is a socialistic one that I reject. Because if accepted it means "society" (the state, its laws and enforcers) can intervene in almost any area of our lives - imposing restrictions (and punishments) on (and for doing) things it believes aren't "good for us."

I concur. I've always thought that, and indeed at the time of my accident laws requiring seat belt usage had not been passed. I thus can credit my own good sense for saving my life (perhaps with some divine intervention) instead of some idiot pandering politician seeking re-election.

Despite the obvious good of seat belts, I am not in favor of mandating good sense and healthy practices.

Amen!

[pgranzeau]

Now ain't that nice? When the purpose of driving is to crash than by all means wear a seat belt. Bravo! Do you wear protection in an elevator too. I hear that a drop is a killer. But then, we all know that the purpose of riding an elevator isn't to crash, don't we? And of course, the buses. I rode a bus once, and car ran a stop sign plowing into my side of the bus sending me sprawling with the end result of a broken leg. Sigh! No laws saying you must wear a seat belt on a bus. In fact, if still in effect, you can't even choose to wear a seat belt on a bus, because there aren't any.

You know, shit happens, whether you intend it or not. I guess when you have your crash without a seat belt, we can chalk the result up to Darwin.

[gail]

Now ain't that nice? When the purpose of driving is to crash than by all means wear a seat belt. Bravo! Do you wear protection in an elevator too. I hear that a drop is a killer. But then, we all know that the purpose of riding an elevator isn't to crash, don't we? And of course, the buses. I rode a bus once, and car ran a stop sign plowing into my side of the bus sending me sprawling with the end result of a broken leg. Sigh! No laws saying you must wear a seat belt on a bus. In fact, if still in effect, you can't even choose to wear a seat belt on a bus, because there aren't any.

You know, shit happens, whether you intend it or not. I guess when you have your crash without a seat belt, we can chalk the result up to Darwin.

Took the words right out of my mouth -- why else do we have the Darwin Awards every year? LOL

BTW I do buckle up the minute I get into a car. I also carry a tool in the slot on the door beside me to cut the darn thing off me just in case I'm stuck in a burning car,or stalled on a railroad track. This tool also has sharp point to break a window just in case my door malfunctions while I'm in that fiery car of if I'm in water. I didn't need a law to tell me that this is smart. How many of you carry such a tool within reach with you? Just wondering ???