kjhhk

All the cop friends and family members I've ever talked to say there is no quota. However, your supervisor will notice if someone seems to be going through a lot of ticket books and you haven't gone through one and may ask what you are doing though, so there's no hard quota, but there is an expectation that you will be issuing tickets during your shift.

CTV W5 did a story about quotas earlier this year. Of course law enforcement don't want to confirm it.
Are police handing out traffic tickets to meet quotas?

So let's say I manage at a coffee shop, and I tell my employees that I want them to ask every customer "Do you want a muffin with that?", and tell them that ideally we'll sell another 15 muffins above and beyond our usual 30 muffins.

Would you consider that a quota? What if I asked them to spend 30% more time than usual upselling sandwiches the next day? Is that?

A quota is when you say "You must do X number of tickets or else you'll face punishments". They are being told "You must spend X amount of time on traffic enforcement", and then are checked to make sure everyone has a relatively consistent amount of tickets to ensure that they're using their time effectively.


But sure, call it a quota if you like.

So they talked to 3 different forces.. VPD, WPS, and TPS.... and only one "former" cop said they had hard quotas. In BC, there are designated Traffic Sections that strictly enforce Traffic. Depending on what Force they work for, there may or may not be an expectation for an amount of tickets being written. If you think about it, if you are a Traffic Member, and it is your job to enforce Traffic Violations, and are working a 10 or 12 hours shift, it doesn't matter if there is a "quota" or not, you are going to see TONS of violations everywhere. It is up to the Officer whether he deems your actions Ticketable or if a warning is suffice.

At the end of the day, if you aren't breaking traffic laws, there wouldn't be tickets being written, and the Traffic Units wouldn't have a job... maybe people should stop driving like morons.

Buddy complains about criminals that need to be caught, and other more serious crimes blahbalhabalh... Conducting a traffic stop is one of the best ways to hit Criminals where it hurts. If they are doing something illegal or driving drunk, and lose their licence, it's a big loss for them. Also, if you happen to search their vehicle and find drugs, money etc relating to crime, it will be seized and again, not so good news for them. Without knowing the structure or different units of a Police department, you can't say "spend more time on fighting real crime". People who say that obviously don't know what goes on within each Agency, and what investigations are being conducted etc.

Lastly, I read the article, but it meant nothing to me as the majority of the time, media is full of ...... they are there to stir the pot more than anything.

Ah yes CTV,.....nothing likebeing the subject of their biased reporting. I was involved in an international news event and saw first hand how they lied about basic facts and spun their reporting to support their sensational agenda. The story still appears from time to time and I see myself on camera saying things...and then see them state things that were 100% incorrect. The story was more sensational that way & that's how they chose to present it.

If you are a Traffic Services Member you are expected to write tickets, among other things. Drug Squad Members charge druggies, IHIT charge murderers and Air services fly airplanes. Specialized sections provide specialized services. BTW as a Traffic Member I was involved in investigating far more homicides that the average IHIT Member. Mine were called fatal crashes and my team usually consisted of me and maybe 1 or 2 others.

I might teeter more towards trusting the media opposed to the police. I think their has been more documented facts where police have been untrustworthy.

I maintain that the proof cops don't have quotas is that in my daily work driving around, I see LOTS of "fishing holes" where they could probably meet a monthly quota within three days, but I almost never see cops there.

If it was all about "you're expected to hand out X number of tickets per month", there are plenty of spots they'd be able to meet that number very quickly... yet oddly, the cops aren't there.

documented by the media. how convenient. do you really think you will EVER see global do a story on ctv about non factual stories? hahahah hahahaha hahahaahhahah

Not all cops are jerks about it. I was listening to our local assembly of IRSU members on the scanner a while back. They were chatting about setting up to catch violators of a "no right turn" restriction. One officer called back saying she didn't like that spot because it was too much of a fishing hole. The officer who suggested it replied "well that's the point".

if an area is known to be high volume with respect to certain traffic violations, why is it a "jerk move" to camp out there and hand out tickets? Isn't that the point of enforcement? To target areas like such? If an area is known to be a place where people are getting mugged all the time, are cops "jerks" to be conducting foot patrols in that area in hopes of deterring crime/catching culprits?

It makes sense for the police to increase their presence where people are more likely to be victimized, but the only victims in many of these fishing holes are the drivers who are being fleeced.

So there's an intersection not far from me, where there is a two-way stop on a hill right behind a school.

Here: https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!...McdA!2e0&fid=5

To date, neither any person or any car has been hit on that corner. However there are a LOT of close calls--people running the stop sign, doing a very speedy rolling stop, and nearly hitting elementary kids, high school kids, people driving up the hill or down, and even me.

The police will every so often set up a combination of school-zone speed trap and stop-sign enforcement at that corner. And the people who bitch and kvetch about getting caught will always say "Well, nobody got hurt, so what's the big deal?" And amusingly enough, it is not an uncommon thing to find out that those speeding and ignoring the stop sign are those people who have children attending that Elementary school.

So yes, there are what you have called "victims" who are getting, as you said, "fleeced". But I would rather they have a monetary reminder of the fact that they are breaking the law and doing dangerous things instead of having the road and the bottom of their SUV stained with a child's blood.

so, the city/police should wait for a fatality to occur before doing anything about it right? The media will have a field day with that one, as usual.

i wouldn't call someone who is knowingly breaking the law (albeit traffic), a "victim". cry me a river.

I had 20% rear tint and 35% front tint on my old car and got pulled over
Asked the officer what the deal was and he told me that i could be related to a gang or something like that LOL

so front tint = gang member
seems legit

^ had 35% all around on my maxima and never got pulled over..altho when it was those close calls i just rolled em down :troll:

debating if to do it again for my prelude..as the car is more "heaty" then a stock maxima lol

So I guess the next time your car or home get broken into, or your phone gets stolen, or a street gang beats you up for being a little bitch... you'll be calling CTV, and leaving the cops alone to do important things like seat belt enforcement, right?

I live up north and there are a bunch of cars and trucks that have the 35% tint on driver and passenger side windows. It's the people that push their limits and go full limo black and those vehicles don't last a week. I have 35% on my driver and passenger and I don't get bothered.

I had ceramic 80% tint once which basically goes on clear. I only really wanted it for heat rejection but still got dinged for it. Like literally does not look like tint. Night time might've looked a little darker then stock. So now I don't bother. Not worth the hassle.

Too bad you can't say something like that in person, just resort to a behind someones back tactic. You are a TRUE little bitch haha.

How is that even called for either? I didn't say anything towards you lol.

It really depends, depending on the tint %, the car could be considered "high-profile" or considered a "target".

35% tint all around seems alrite, looking at the WA who visit BC. I also seen some of the WA cars which are pushing it going 20% all around for example looks high profile since that is too dark (below the 24% VLT to be legal in WA).

I also know friend who is using F1 Pinnacle 35 all around and also has Llumar Air Blue 80 on the front windshield (which no one notices). No problem with police or border.

Well the cops (as a whole) didn't say anything against you, yet you feel it's fair to make a blanket accusation against their trustworthiness... how is that even called for?

And how do you know that?

How is saying it on a PUBLIC FORUM for everyone to see, "behind someone's back"?

You have NO idea.

What does that have to do w/ you? Are you a cop? Or even anyone remotely affiliated w/ them? Thank god you're not cause i know what kind of cop you WOULD be, the one who punches someone and asks questions after. Just look at the brutality threads.