Speeding barely a factor in crashes

[speedog]

From Calgary Sun columnist Michael Platt on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - Speeding barely a factor in crashes.
If it isn’t a cash cow, it sure stinks like something a herd of heifers left behind.

Thousands of speeding tickets worth millions in extra revenue for the province, yet when the statistics on crashes are released, speeding is nowhere to be found.

The 2009 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics do say plenty about collisions, and exactly why we have them.

Following too close, running off the road, turning across path of oncoming traffic, failing to yield to pedestrians.

All these, and many more, make up the detailed list explaining exactly why Alberta motorists were involved in 10,809 casualty collisions last year.

The charts cover time of day, weather, type of vehicle — even age and sex of the driver.

Yet in 93-pages of meticulous information, there is no mention of speed, despite it being the number one safety concern on Alberta roads, if we judge by the number of tickets written.

On highways alone, Sheriffs and RCMP issued fines worth $111 million between April 2009 and March 2010, with over 80% of those tickets from speeding. It’s a similar story in cities and towns.

So where are the statistics showing the danger of putting the pedal to the metal?

It seems the province left speeding out of the new report on traffic collision statistics, and it takes a special request to Alberta Transportation to get a copy of the relevant document.

When the report arrives, entitled “Driver Error Pie 2009,” it’s easy to see why it went missing from the main report.

As well as nifty pie chart, it contains the truth about speeding. And the truth is, only six crashes out of every hundred involve speeding.

It’s a flabbergasting fact, given the endless propaganda paid to speeding as a serious danger to the public, and the multitude of equipment and manpower devoting to stopping those who break the limit.

Solicitor General Frank Oberle said as much Tuesday, when the collision stats were released.

“Law enforcement’s visibility on our roads serves as a constant reminder to aggressive drivers and speeders that high-risk driving will not be tolerated,” said Oberle.

Aggressive drivers, sure. But the government’s own numbers show speeding isn’t a major cause of wrecks.

The exact wording, from Alberta Transportation, is thus: “Speed – 6.2% of total collisions involved one or more drivers indicated by the police as having been travelling at a speed too great for the given conditions.”

True, when speeders do crash, it isn’t pretty, and the report says speed is a factor in three out of ten fatal crashes, a number that’s been made public before.

But it’s that hidden figure, 6.2%, where things no longer add up. Frankly, it stinks.

From the photo radar in our cities, to the sheriffs scribbling fines on our highways, Alberta’s anti-speeding campaign is focused on a factor present in a paltry percentage of crashes.

If safety were the real concern, police resources would be spent on preventing tailgaters, or monitoring crosswalks.

Of course, it’s vastly more lucrative to fine drivers who break the speed limit, even though the province’s own statistics suggest more lives would be saved if police focused on bad driving.

A cash cow? A waste of time, in any case.

Getting those in power to admit that police would be more effective without the radar gun isn’t easy.

As Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette spoke to the overall reduction in annual fatalities and injuries, he wasn’t keen to suggest police should refocus their efforts.

Ouellette did say the upcoming distracted driving legislation, which will ban mobile phones, lipstick and other driving diversions, won’t be enforced the way speed laws are.

“I don’t want this bill to turn into a policeman sitting behind a billboard, watching to see if someone takes a bite of a sandwich,” said Ouellette.

“We told the police, we want you to use this as a tool to make our roads safer.”

In fact, Alberta’s police already have the tools to make out roads safer, in the form of keen observation, good judgement, and ticket books.

But first, officers need permission to hang up the radar guns, and focus on the real danger on our roads.

Clearly, it isn’t speeding


So what are you going to do about this? Realistically, will you do anything that will actively contribute to bringing about positive changes to the current situation that Michael Platt speaks too?

Now I fully expect numerous jack-ass responses, but in reality change comes about because of involved and informed people working towards a common goal and if this common goal is to be a more well educated driving public that can better handle higher speeds resulting in a less heavy handed policing system looking for speeders, then what is your realistic plan?

Do you think that you can make a difference towards some possible change?

Or do things even have to change from the way they currently are?

[DayGlow]

Using the same logic looking at the report and table 10.1 only 5.3 of a 100 crashes involved alcohol, so the whole DUI thing is a waste of time.

But if you are serious write to the Calgary Police Commission. They are the ones that direct policy for the police here.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Using the same logic looking at the report and table 10.1 only 5.3 of a 100 crashes involved alcohol, so the whole DUI thing is a waste of time.

But if you are serious write to the Calgary Police Commission. They are the ones that direct policy for the police here.

I'd imagine that is because out of those 100 drivers, there are much fewer drunk drivers then there are speeders.

[Canmorite]

Much easier to stand on a highway with a radar gun to hand out tickets I think. I always see assholes driving with no regard for others in the city, but it's usually the person who does 10-20 over who gets a ticket.

[DayGlow]

Also looking at the report there is an issue with how speed is determined to be a factor. The stats are based off of check boxes on the collision report. There is a section for unsafe speed with the options of yes, no, and unknown.

No or unknown will be filled out the vast majority of the time as the investigator didn't witness the collision. The only time speed is investigated is in a serious injury collision or fatality as that's when the Traffic Section comes out and does the measurements and math to determine speed. A simple property damage collision will never be investigated like that and the regular patrol officer doesn't have the expertise to do a collision reconstruction.

Follow to close? It's a rear ender so I can check that off. Was the guy going o fast as well? No way of knowing a week later when it's reported at the front counter, so unknown speed checked off. Same for left turn across path, etc.

[arian_ma]

I think you can attribute the drinking and driving stats to the fact that most people know that it is retarded, and only a small fraction of people on the roads are in fact drinking and driving, hence the lower number of crashes caused by them.

However, everyone speeds, and the numbers are still almost as low as DUI accidents.

:dunno:

Edit: Too slow.

[Redlyne_mr2]

As time progresses more and more people are becoming wise to the CPS and there tactics. I wonder how long until we see some form of coup d'etat.

[lint]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Also looking at the report there is an issue with how speed is determined to be a factor. The stats are based off of check boxes on the collision report. There is a section for unsafe speed with the options of yes, no, and unknown.

No or unknown will be filled out the vast majority of the time as the investigator didn't witness the collision. The only time speed is investigated is in a serious injury collision or fatality as that's when the Traffic Section comes out and does the measurements and math to determine speed. A simple property damage collision will never be investigated like that and the regular patrol officer doesn't have the expertise to do a collision reconstruction.

Follow to close? It's a rear ender so I can check that off. Was the guy going o fast as well? No way of knowing a week later when it's reported at the front counter, so unknown speed checked off. Same for left turn across path, etc.

So even the police reports are saying that speeding isn't as much of a factor in collisions compared to other reasons (following too close, not checking traffic for a left turn)

[DayGlow]

I have said many times organize and approach the Calgary Police Commission. They have the power to direct the Police Chief in enforcement. They represent the people if the city so use them.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by lint


So even the police reports are saying that speeding isn't as much of a factor in collisions compared to other reasons (following too close, not checking traffic for a left turn)

No I'm saying the stats are based on incomplete reporting because speed isn't investigated in minor collisions that make up the majority of the stats. Speed is a factor in 1/3 of the collisions where the investigation is conducted.

You can't do a collision reconstruction on a report filed a week later, so it is impossible to determine the speed of the vehicles involved. You can determine that someone was rear ended or struck while making a turn and since the responsibility of the person following or making the turn to do so safely regardless if the actions of the other driver. An officer can determine this after the fact. What I can't determine is if the speed of the drivers played a part in the collision in the first place.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
As time progresses more and more people are becoming wise to the CPS and there tactics. I wonder how long until we see some form of coup d'etat. +1

I know my respect for CPS is dropping. I have family in the force and I am starting to see it as a corporation like my own, instead of the civil servants and protectors I used to trust when I was younger.

I now feel my own responsibility to protect my self, my family and my property. I thought that was just me growing up but I am starting to wonder if the CPS has forgotten what their main job is supposed to be.

[gretz]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Using the same logic looking at the report and table 10.1 only 5.3 of a 100 crashes involved alcohol, so the whole DUI thing is a waste of time.

But if you are serious write to the Calgary Police Commission. They are the ones that direct policy for the police here.

lol... saw that coming from you...

Question: How long of a time period does it take for them to review information sent by public? Do they get back in touch with you after your concern is resolved or can they just crumple up / delete it?


You always tell the public to "write a letter", "go in and talk to someone", "call the support / complain center"... when it comes to something that doesn't seem right. Do you know how far it actually goes? You claim to say things get looked at, officers get talked to, etc.... lol - have you ever tried any of these things yourself?

I have and it goes no-where - from calling in speeding-through schoolzone-cops with no lights on ("going to a burglary" or something was your one reason > to not warn the intruders) - to trying to help them understand the laws they don't know, but are still enforcing... Not only does it go no-where, but they let you know exactly where you stand in the food chain...

[lint]

Originally posted by DayGlow
No I'm saying the stats are based on incomplete reporting because speed isn't investigated in minor collisions that make up the majority of the stats. Speed is a factor in 1/3 of the collisions where the investigation is conducted.

Source? And my point wasn't that speed ISN'T a factor. Rather, if you were to remove the speed factor, would the collision still occur? ie a driver is speeding (say 65 in a 50) and following too close. If the driver was going 50 and still following too close, would the rear ender have occurred?


Originally posted by DayGlow You can't do a collision reconstruction on a report filed a week later, so it is impossible to determine the speed of the vehicles involved. You can determine that someone was rear ended or struck while making a turn and since the responsibility of the person following or making the turn to do so safely regardless if the actions of the other driver. An officer can determine this after the fact. What I can't determine is if the speed of the drivers played a part in the collision in the first place.

So speed is a factor, but you can't determine if the speed of the drivers played a part in the collision in the first place? I'm confused

[frizzlefry]

Well this was obvious. The placement of photo vans are always to maximize profit, not safety. Like placing them at the end of merge lanes onto deerfoot and glenmore. Yeah genius, make people slam on their brakes as they are merging onto a 100km/h road.

The police could spin this to say “because of their awesome crackdown on those reckless, murdering speeders, speeding is ONLY involved in a minimal number of accidents. Drivers are getting the message.” :rolleyes:

[Feruk]

Originally posted by DayGlow


No I'm saying the stats are based on incomplete reporting because speed isn't investigated in minor collisions that make up the majority of the stats. Speed is a factor in 1/3 of the collisions where the investigation is conducted.

You can't do a collision reconstruction on a report filed a week later, so it is impossible to determine the speed of the vehicles involved. You can determine that someone was rear ended or struck while making a turn and since the responsibility of the person following or making the turn to do so safely regardless if the actions of the other driver. An officer can determine this after the fact. What I can't determine is if the speed of the drivers played a part in the collision in the first place.

I think you're absolutely right. However, having said that, I believe the burden of proof should lie with CPS. They are here to serve US. If they believe writing tickets to reduce speed is making Alberta roads safer, I want to see PROOF. While I agree the report is incomplete, I think it's important to note that the report in no way shape or form indicates Police activity is being utilized correctly. In fact, it seems to indicate the opposite.

On top of that, we are now allowing a distracted driver legislation to pass that will empower them to ticket me for changing my radio station at a red light? Even better, we're leaving the final decision to bother us in the hands of trigger happy rookies (yes I know this is the extreme)?

You've gotta be kidding me!

[Thaco]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Also looking at the report there is an issue with how speed is determined to be a factor. The stats are based off of check boxes on the collision report. There is a section for unsafe speed with the options of yes, no, and unknown.

No or unknown will be filled out the vast majority of the time as the investigator didn't witness the collision. The only time speed is investigated is in a serious injury collision or fatality as that's when the Traffic Section comes out and does the measurements and math to determine speed. A simple property damage collision will never be investigated like that and the regular patrol officer doesn't have the expertise to do a collision reconstruction.

Follow to close? It's a rear ender so I can check that off. Was the guy going o fast as well? No way of knowing a week later when it's reported at the front counter, so unknown speed checked off. Same for left turn across path, etc.



even if you are right and the number is closer to 30% (which i doubt)


they're using 80% of resources to "fix" 30% of the problem?... sounds reasonable to me :nut:

[speedog]

Originally posted by gretz
lol... saw that coming from you...

Question: How long of a time period does it take for them to review information sent by public? Do they get back in touch with you after your concern is resolved or can they just crumple up / delete it?


You always tell the public to "write a letter", "go in and talk to someone", "call the support / complain center"... when it comes to something that doesn't seem right. Do you know how far it actually goes? You claim to say things get looked at, officers get talked to, etc.... lol - have you ever tried any of these things yourself?

I have and it goes nowhere - from calling in speeding-through school zone-cops with no lights on ("going to a burglary" or something was your one reason > to not warn the intruders) - to trying to help them understand the laws they don't know, but are still enforcing... Not only does it go no-where, but they let you know exactly where you stand in the food chain... So in essence, what you're telling us is that you've just given up, that there's no point in trying to make a difference, that the powers that be will always control the masses? Sounds like you've already bought lock, stock and barrel into an Orwellian 1984 society.

[Kloubek]

Interesting. They had a segment on the Calgary news last night where the officer claimed that something like 30+% of accidents had speeding as a factor. Perhaps a mini-PR campaign of sorts in light of stats such as this column coming out?

Look. I speed when I deem it safe. But I also speed knowing there may be consequences should I get caught doing so. I would agree that speeding is a over-inforced, but on the flip side if it wasn't enforced at all it would be absolute chaos. Our roads are not built with long lead-ins and outs and gradual curves to support a lack of limits like the Autobahn.

And while I don't have any information on exactly where that money is going, rest assured that if it was not coming in from tickets then it would be coming from somewhere else. And at the end of the day, that means the public *anyway*.

This is not to imply that I don't have my own qualms either. I hate the fact that photo radar vans sit there idling for hours to keep their equipment running. Way to help kill the environment assholes. I hate the way some people are singled out either by race, age, or the car they drive.... and I hate the way that tickets become questionable by the end of the month so the cops can reach their quota. I could go on and on, but there is little point.

The point is that people use this to bitch and complain, and as "ammunition" to say the cops are doing things wrong, or not doing their jobs properly. But the fact is, we live in a society of rules and regulations. If you don't like them, then band together to do something about it as Dayglow suggests, or move somewhere else like Baghdad where everything is absolute mayhem anyway.

[e31]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
As time progresses more and more people are becoming wise to the CPS and there tactics. I wonder how long until we see some form of coup d'etat.


:thread hijack mode on: Free market police system? Why dial 266-1234 when you can have a response immediately from a competing police organization?

Just dial 0118 999 88199 9119725 3 and talk to our friendly operators now.

[gretz]

Originally posted by speedog
So in essence, what you're telling us is that you've just given up, that there's no point in trying to make a difference, that the powers that be will always control the masses? '

lol... not at all what i was saying - Its not cut/paste easy to get "your voice" heard, as it is made out to be...

Given up lol... I may be one of the only ones on here that has actually tried to make a positive difference in using the call center / going in...

[Toma]

For anyone with a brain, this is common sense.

Flip the way the statistic is made up, and think about it in terms of probability, like a winning lottery ticket.

What I mean is, instead of saying "out of people that won the lottery jackpot, how many had blonde hair?" as the statistic mentioned above do....

Try... "out of ALL the incidence of speeding, how many resulted in an accident."

When you look at it this way, THIS is when the TRUE statistic will be flushed out. You will never see this statistic, as I bet something like .000007% of incidence of speeding lead to a accident (like winnning 6-49)

On any given day driving between Edmonton and Calgary lets say..... How many speeders were there? And out of that, how many accidents were reported that can be attributed to speed?

Pretty well 70% of people speed at SOME point on that journey. If speeding was even a "6%" danger, we would have hundreds of speed related accidents a day.


But we don't. Welcome to revenue based policing, where it takes 45 minutes for cops to show up at a 911 assault or B&E call, but speeding has such massive man power devoted to it.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by gretz


lol... saw that coming from you...

Question: How long of a time period does it take for them to review information sent by public? Do they get back in touch with you after your concern is resolved or can they just crumple up / delete it?


You always tell the public to "write a letter", "go in and talk to someone", "call the support / complain center"... when it comes to something that doesn't seem right. Do you know how far it actually goes? You claim to say things get looked at, officers get talked to, etc.... lol - have you ever tried any of these things yourself?

I have and it goes no-where - from calling in speeding-through schoolzone-cops with no lights on ("going to a burglary" or something was your one reason > to not warn the intruders) - to trying to help them understand the laws they don't know, but are still enforcing... Not only does it go no-where, but they let you know exactly where you stand in the food chain...

Will a single person writing a letter to the commission make a difference? Probably not, but a citizen group made up of a few 1000 people? They probably would get some attention. You have to get involved, you have to be motivated like any other process out there.

As for complaints that go no where, they do. I've had informal repremands and formal. I've seen coppers around me also reprimanded for their mistakes from an official reprimand in their file to suspensions to dismissal. I've also had baseless accusations leveled against me as well. Look at the Law Enforcement Review Board website, they list all their judgments if you want to see the process in work.

Lets take your cop going through the school zone example. You call and complain. The supervisor looks at the call history and sees he is responding to a B&E and decides he was acting properly so no action us taken. You disagree so you can file a formal complaint through Professional Standards. You don't like the outcome so you can then appeal it to the LERB. Conversly if he was acting improperly you maybe satisfied with an informal reprimand from the supervisor, or you can go the official route the Professional Standards then the LERB if you are still unsatisfied with the outcome.

Look I'm don't agree with everything that this service does. I agree that there are some bullshit speed traps, like when guys setup on Airport Trail when it goes from 90 to 60 before a T intersection. I have my sphere on influence and I work within it with my opinions. If I go farther in this service that sphere will expand. I do think as a service we do way more good than bad so I see no reason to leave. It may change in the future, but for mw the reality at 0300 in the morning the people around me are looking to catch criminals going to calls vs doing traffic enforcement. If someone I worked with didn't go to a hot call because they are doing laser damn sure they would hear my opinion on that and that's reflected in most officers I know.

[kertejud2]

Well if every Calgarian was willing to pay a $110 levy each year to replace the ticket revenue in the CPS budget we could eliminate this problem. Speeding has a number and is a rather definite violation so (far) more often than not its a waste of time to try and fight it, "Bad driving" can be very subjective and could lead to a lot more challenges which means more money being spent by the taxpayer. So speeding tickets are a far more efficient revenue stream than other traffic tickets, and they're easier to give out en masse (a bad driving trap just wouldn't bring in anywhere near as much cash).

[lint]

You know an even bigger problem? CPS can't reconcile the value of tickets they write with the actual fines they collect. ie, you get a $115 speeding ticket and the JP reduces it to $80. That $35 isn't reported

[Mitsu3000gt]

Speeding having little to do with accidents isn't news at all, it's common sense if you have ever driven a car IMO. Just have a look across the pond at Germany.

Also, people still for the most part drive at speeds they are comfortable with, between 10 and 30 km/h over the limit depending on the road, and it is perfectly safe. The vast majority of collisions would still happen at 70 km/h as they would at 90 km/h or whatever. Poor driving is to blame most of the time, not speed.

Unfortunately, speeding tickets make far too much revenue for the city for us to see any change. Even if every single person in Calgary voted to raise speed limits, I bet it still wouldn't make even the tiniest difference.

I would happily pay $100-200/year to eliminate or significantly raise speed limits where safe to do so. I don't think many people would drive any differently than they already do now, but you wouldn't have to worry about any BS speed traps designed for maximum profit rather than safety. I think even the abysmal quality of most of our roads would keep people's speed down naturally, if there was no limit or higher limits.

[gretz]

Originally posted by DayGlow


Lets take your cop going through the school zone example. You call and complain. The supervisor looks at the call history and sees he is responding to a B&E and decides he was acting properly so no action us taken. You disagree so you can file a formal complaint through Professional Standards. You don't like the outcome so you can then appeal it to the LERB. Conversly if he was acting improperly you maybe satisfied with an informal reprimand from the supervisor, or you can go the official route the Professional Standards then the LERB if you are still unsatisfied with the outcome.


What outcome? Am I supposed to keep going and following up (they refer to it as bothering, as they don't seem to take you seriously)? Its pretty exhausting dealing with "you people" as a citizen as it is lol -

thanks for helping me understand the process though -

So now, I have to call it in... If the supervisor feels the complaint was worth addressing, he says "slow down" to the officer (in a nut shell) > I'm no off-duty cop, but I would have gotten a ticket in the mail for something as described lol

Now that it is called in, I can file a formal complaint (if the "unknown" outcome is not what you wanted)

If that unknown outcome isn't what you wanted you can go to LERB, which does :dunno:

All of this time and effort for what? The officer getting a slap on the wrists? Not to mention they don't let you know what "outcome" you speak of... I've tried man > like I ask, have you?

There is a reason people "give-up" / don't even bother > for what BS you have to go through coupled with the outstanding amounts of respect "the force" shows a citizen that has a complaint about one of there own, no wonder people don't bother...

Its hard for us to enforce what is right, when ALL officers have better judgement on ALL situations, as they are trained, professional, have unfathomable judgement.... how can we compete with that?

[DayGlow]

So you don't like the fact there us an official process? What do you want? If an allegation is made against an officer he isn't allowed to defend his actions?

There has to be a balance of accessibility vs accountability in the process and it does lean towards the person filing a complaint. I've seen coppers lives turned upside down for over a year because of an unfounded allegation based on malice of the complainer with no repercussions in the end.

I've also seen coppers recieve tickets for unjustified traffic violations after an internal investigation, it happens. Again go to the LERB website to see the tip of internal dealings within police forces in Alberta. Most don't go that far because all parties are satisfied with the outcome at an informal or formal level.

[gretz]

Originally posted by DayGlow
So you don't like the fact there us an official process? What do you want? If an allegation is made against an officer he isn't allowed to defend his actions?


What are you going on about?

I DON'T LIKE THE PROCESS, IT SUCKS, END... is that what my post said?
OFFICERS SHOULDN"T BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... was that in there too?

Is thats what you got out of my posts?

Like I asked - have you tried? No, you haven't... (unless you ignored all 3 times i asked)

What outcome do you speak of (must have missed this too)? I've never had an outcome.... does someone call you or do I go check up?

[wintonyk]

I like the lottery analogy that Toma used, but in a slightly different way.

I think speeding tickets are like the lottery as in an idiot tax. You speed knowingly that if you get caught there is a fine to be paid to the government. You buy a lottery ticket knowingly that the money goes to the government.

In the case of speeding you take the risk of winning (not getting caught).

I would rather have my taxes stay the same, then have the speed limit increase by 10 or 20 km so less people get tickets.

With the exception of long distance trips does that extra speed get you to you destination that much quicker?

[speedog]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Well if every Calgarian was willing to pay a $110 levy each year to replace the ticket revenue in the CPS budget we could eliminate this problem. Speeding has a number and is a rather definite violation so (far) more often than not its a waste of time to try and fight it, "Bad driving" can be very subjective and could lead to a lot more challenges which means more money being spent by the taxpayer. So speeding tickets are a far more efficient revenue stream than other traffic tickets, and they're easier to give out en masse (a bad driving trap just wouldn't bring in anywhere near as much cash). $550 annually from my family's budget to offset maybe 3 speeding tickets over the past 10 years that didn't even total over $300 - wow, where do I sign up?

[JustGo]

Originally posted by arian_ma
I think you can attribute the drinking and driving stats to the fact that most people know that it is retarded, and only a small fraction of people on the roads are in fact drinking and driving, hence the lower number of crashes caused by them.

However, everyone speeds, and the numbers are still almost as low as DUI accidents.

:dunno:

Edit: Too slow.
hahaahaah.... no....

Go out and volunteer one night with the checkstop bus.... I would say at LEAST 15-20% of the vehicles you stop, the driver will admit to at least one drink. It's a bigger problem than you seem to think.

[Xtrema]

Cops need revenue. Speeding tix provide biggest amount of revenue with least amount of effort.

Do I like to see cop stopping tailgater and bad drivers out there? Sure. But logistics are tougher.

[msommers]

While I agree speeding likely isn't the primary factor in a majority of crashes, could you imagine if the police didn't regulate it? People knowing they couldn't get speeding tickets would cause people to be absolute fuck tards. Common sense isn't as common as people think. If a speeding law was lifted, retards would take it as an invitation to excessively speed despite what they think they're comfortable or capable of handling. Hey lets go 100km/h in a residential area, who gives a fuck, they can't ticket me!! Construction zones would be a fucking nightmare for workers. While many people on this board may be better than the average driver (big maybe), we are only a fraction of the city's driving population. I'm sure there are literally tens of thousands of people here that shouldn't have their license in the first place.

If the speeding law was lifted and yearly driving tests were required, I'd much rather pay my $150/yr there then to a cop who caught me doing 75 in a 60 at the bottom of a hill.

[codetrap]

So.. am I the only one getting tired of all these cop/speed threads with the blatant agenda and constant bitching?

http://chicksinthehuddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/south-park-dead-horse.jpg

[Sugarphreak]

...

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by speedog
$550 annually from my family's budget to offset maybe 3 speeding tickets over the past 10 years that didn't even total over $300 - wow, where do I sign up?

That's kind of the point. The only people who would benefit with such a revenue system are the people stupid enough to get over $100 in speeding tickets every year. I'd rather see radar traps than a tax increase (or the gutting of the police service in a growing city), even if they don't make the roads any safer.

[1barA4]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

-People who have no idea how to drive in bad weather conditions, at least 20 under what would be deemed a safe speed.


If you mean in the rain, then I agree. If you mean when there's snow on the ground, I'd rather have johnny jackass driving slower than the speed limit instead of creampuffing whatever is in front of him when his 7' raised pickup with mud tires that don't do shit in the snow mows down a Hyundai Accent.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The most dangerous people I see on the road are usually doing 10km or 15km under the limit. :rofl:

Examples:
-Drunk driver trying do just under the limit so he doesn't get caught despite the fact he is weaving between two lanes
-Pot smoker, super mellow slow driving... usually not too slow, but have zero reaction to things happening around them.
-Little old ladies... at least 15 under and no concept that there is a world that exists beyond the windows of the car.
-Soccer moms, too busy trying to control 5 kids in the backseat always doing under the limit so they don't rear-end somebody while looking back yelling.
-People who have no idea how to drive in bad weather conditions, at least 20 under what would be deemed a safe speed.
-Cell phone jockies... always slow and about 1/3 of the way into another lane.
-People with generally bad driving skills... slow, all the time. Always running red lights and cutting people off.


In fact, now that I think about it... I feel safest when traffic around me is moving at a good 10% over the limit.


This I stand by. You can tell the difference between a conscious and confident driver compared to a scared/distracted driver. I guess it is just harder to fine a senior merging onto Deerfoot at 60km/h. I have never seen (though I am sure it happens) a person ticketed for pulling out of a parking lot and causing a disruption in traffic flow. I also have never heard of people being ticketed for stopping past the stop line or crosswalk. How many people were fined for blocking an intersection due to high traffic? How many people have been fined for driving along the shoulder to overtake traffic.

These people, the ones who don't care, or are being reckless/distracted, they are the cause for the other 80% in traffic collisions.

IMO, traffic police need to focus on:
-slow moving vehicles
-moving monstrosities that are falling apart and cannot pass insurance inspections. This also goes to vehicles that are not equipped for winter driving.
-impaired/distracted drivers
-Reckless drivers (the ones that drive like Dale Earnhart jr. or travel at speeds in excess of 20km/h over)
-Pedestrians that don't look out for their own safety.

I bet if police officers had the ability to hand out $200 fines for being a douche, there would be a lot more qualified people on the road.

I also stand by my theory to implement mandatory written tests (similar to learner's exams) every renewal. I bet the rules of the road have changed and should be revisited to refresh the minds of the populous.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[frizzlefry]

Slow drivers are a big problem these days. A decade ago, Calgary drivers were like everyone else. Everyone did 10km/h over and all was good. But over-enforcement of speed limits, combined with a city that’s seemingly always under random speed reductions with no construction workers present, has made a populace that is scared to death to drive the limit. As a result everyone stares at their speedometers and can't merge as that involves driving a little aggressively to find a spot. I end up passing almost every driver I get behind in a merge lane because people simply don't know how to.

[arian_ma]

Originally posted by JustGo

hahaahaah.... no....

Go out and volunteer one night with the checkstop bus.... I would say at LEAST 15-20% of the vehicles you stop, the driver will admit to at least one drink. It's a bigger problem than you seem to think.
Friday night statistics do not represent every day statistics.

[gretz]

Originally posted by JustGo

hahaahaah.... no....

Go out and volunteer one night with the checkstop bus.... I would say at LEAST 15-20% of the vehicles you stop, the driver will admit to at least one drink. It's a bigger problem than you seem to think.

hahaahaah... yes...

It seems the cops on here only chime in when they can shoot down someone's opinion - when asked a question or challenged, they kind of veer to another post they can pick apart... it seems...

15-20% have had at least one drink? That would put them over the limit correct (or at least a reason to have to blow)? How many people do you get through the checkstop?

Crazy how many people drink and drive on a Friday - that should be on the news...

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by gretz

15-20% have had at least one drink? That would put them over the limit correct (or at least a reason to have to blow)? How many people do you get through the checkstop?

Crazy how many people drink and drive on a Friday - that should be on the news...

I don't think a single drink would even put a 90lb girl over the limit. I think many of you would be surprised how much it takes to hit 0.08, although it is different for every individual.

I also think there is a point where 1-2 drinks actually improves people's driving, because they aren't even close to being impaired, but they drive extra carefully because they know they have had a drink or two. Probably the same way that it improves people's pool skills, etc. to a point. Obviously it's a fine line though, and starts to go downhill fast after a certain point.

I think if a cop thinks you had a drink, and you blow anything but 0.00, you can get a 24 hour suspension at worst.

[theken]

I'm think cps should set up traps where it is important ie. School/playground zones. Or heavy accident locations. Not on stoney trail.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by e31
Just dial 0118 999 88199 9119725 3 Please tell me you had to look this up, hahaha. I LOLed though.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by gretz


15-20% have had at least one drink? That would put them over the limit correct (or at least a reason to have to blow)? How many people do you get through the checkstop?

Crazy how many people drink and drive on a Friday - that should be on the news...

One drink usually will not put a person over the legal blood alcohol level. In fact, one drink for a man my size will not even register. *

This brings up the point of how many out of those 15 - 20% of people are actually impaired.

I always admit if I have had one or two. Why lie? They can smell it. Keep in mind, the average male can consume 1 drink an hour to a maximum of 3 drinks (see notes) and still fall well below the limit.**

Again, there are a lot of factors that determine how much alcohol will affect the human body. Weight, sex, metabolizem (sp?), illness, medication, etc. can all play a different role in blood alcohol levels.

Now take a look at the legality behind the impaired driving law. It does not specify how a person can be impaired. Almost anything can cause impairment including meds, stress, caffeine, tobacco, illicit drugs, physical ailment, etc. Keep in mind, impaired driving infractions have been handed out to people who blew under 0.08.

To generalize; Cops are looking for impairment, which is relative. You do what you need to do to feel safe.

*an experiment done with a police officer and myself. Consumed one beer and tested in 5 minute intervals and recorded the results. No register on the breathalyzer.

**Continued experiment with officer and resulted in blowing a 0.03. It was also confirmed by the officer that a lot of people that have confessed to having "one or two" drinks do blow well under. We stopped after 3 beers because that is the personal limit I have set for myself.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Another thing I would fully support to offset speeding ticket revenue would be to make very high fines ($1000-$5000 or something) for littering, smoking outside of designated zones, stopping in merge lanes without cause, etc. With the amount of people I see throw cigarette butts out the window every day, at $1000 per infraction, we would likely make more than we do on speeding tickets anyways.

I also think speed limits should remain in effect on residential roads and school zones, just like they do in parts of the world where there is still no speed limit on some roads. Clearly people shouldn't be allowed to cruise through a busy residential area at 100km/h, but if I want to do 150km/h between Calgary and Edmonton on a large, straight, divided highway, I wouldn't be endangering anyone.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by gretz


What are you going on about?

I DON'T LIKE THE PROCESS, IT SUCKS, END... is that what my post said?
OFFICERS SHOULDN"T BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... was that in there too?

Is thats what you got out of my posts?

Like I asked - have you tried? No, you haven't... (unless you ignored all 3 times i asked)

What outcome do you speak of (must have missed this too)? I've never had an outcome.... does someone call you or do I go check up?

No I've never had to file a complaint. Never had a reason before or since I became a cop.

As never having an outcome, what was the conversation you had? Dis you specify to the person what you were expecting? Or do you feel you were blown off and not taken seriously?

If you feel you were blown off by either communications or a supervisor then an official then an official complaint with Professional Standards, or the LERB if they don't listen to you. If the LERB doesn't listen to you well then the whole system is corrupt and you're screwed.

Do I claim that every person you contact will follow protocol and be helpful? No, but there is a process in place so you can go up the chain as it were to get heard.

[gretz]

^^ thanks for the response...

I usually let the "questionable" police driving slide, as we've all ran red-lights without sirens/lights on (we had our reasons lol), go ridiculous speeds in residential/all zones (there was a reason there too im sure), and rode ass of another motorist to "test" them as drivers... but there comes a time where it gets out of hand.

Should I just accidently roll a ball out in-front of the car next time to "simulate a child" running onto the road (as it happens)? When he smokes the ball and finally stops, will I get in shit for losing control of the ball, endagering the officer, assault, etc...?

[DayGlow]

I see, you simply have an axe to grind. Good day.

[gretz]

Originally posted by DayGlow
I see, you simply have an axe to grind. Good day.

An axe to grind? Not here, I'm genuinly curious... You put it in your own head - as I apparently don't like the process or officers defending themselves(honestly, where did that come from?) and have it in for all of you...

You don't like questions obviously lol... I have the upmost respect for the police, as I've said many times, they just raise a few questions that I can't seem to get the answers for... Sorry to hit your soft spot, I'll just agree with you and let it die (ironically this is the same process as voicing your concern to the police)

[DayGlow]

Well something is being lost in communicating in this medium. I am trying to answer your questions as best as I understand them, but your last post did, as I read it, have a bit of a smart ass tone to it. I have no idea if the examples you list them had legitimate reasons behind them or not. I've outlined the complaint process and how you can voice it to a higher level if you aren't satisfied with the result you get. What more do you want?

[gretz]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Well something is being lost in communicating in this medium. I am trying to answer your questions as best as I understand them, but your last post did, as I read it, have a bit of a smart ass tone to it. I have no idea if the examples you list them had legitimate reasons behind them or not. I've outlined the complaint process and how you can voice it to a higher level if you aren't satisfied with the result you get. What more do you want?

Last post was sarcasm (smart-ass tone i suppose)

You did answer the process part - thank you for that... You just make it seem so easy lol...

[frizzlefry]

I appreciate DayGlow answering questions, learned quite a bit from him. I'm also setting up a question of my own :) Have you ever heard of an officer pulling over a car for jamming their lidar gun? Jammers are legal here and the accepted rule when running them is to turn it off once you slow down, even if they are legal. Anything a police officer could do if they could not get a reading off you at all, thus making it obvious you are jamming?

Of course I have one. I'm not a "bad" speeder at all, just 12 over like most people. Calgary is too crowded and the roads so lousy that I find even doing the limit can trash your rims :) I just saw so many "cheap" traps that I bought one to avoid cash-cow tickets. Mainly construction zones that have no construction. Like Bow Trail....saw a trap there almost every day during the week the speed limit was lowered but no construction had started. Never saw any once construction began :confused:

[mx73someday]

The best solution to this problem is to abolish public roads.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by mx73someday
The best solution to this problem is to abolish public roads.

Yeah, because nobody gets speeding tickets on toll roads.

[masoncgy]

^ I think your sarcasm detector is broken... lol

[JDMMAN]

As Clarkson said "Speed never killed anyone; suddenly becoming stationary... that's what gets you."

[brokeass]

Cops are faggots end of story. :thumbsdow

http://www.bigqueer.com/uploads/47252905.zzzzrod2cop50aaaaa.jpg

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Yeah, because nobody gets speeding tickets on toll roads.

Toll roads are public roads with a usage fee, aren't they? My comment wasn't sarcastic.

[CUG]

The raging smart-assed shit in here is hilarious. I'm definitely not moving my tongue around their rectal cavities at all, but Beyond's pretty lucky to have some cops that answer Q's for us.

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by mx73someday
My comment wasn't sarcastic.

Oh... just retarded then. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by mx73someday


Toll roads are public roads with a usage fee, aren't they?

Some are, some aren't. Regardless of whether they're public, private or both, making them all private doesn't provide any solution to the problem you addressed: using speeding tickets as a source of revenue under the guise of safety. It was just libertard verbal diarrhoea.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Some are, some aren't. Regardless of whether they're public, private or both, making them all private doesn't provide any solution to the problem you addressed: using speeding tickets as a source of revenue under the guise of safety. It was just libertard verbal diarrhoea.

That’s the issue. Once enforcing a law is considered a part of a budget, then it will be applied unfairly. Period. Imagine, for a second, what would happen if prosecuting someone for murder was profitable.....think about it. Bad enough as is the number of innocent people freed by DNA these days....and right now it’s an expense! If it made money, good god, it would be considered an offense to our feelings of justice to jail people and make a profit from it. But if it’s only a couple hundred bucks..

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Regardless of whether they're public, private or both, making them all private doesn't provide any solution to the problem you addressed: using speeding tickets as a source of revenue under the guise of safety.

If a private road owner tried to enforce the same revenue generating regulations that government does, they'd very quickly lose their customers to friendlier and more innovative competing roads. And even if some owners did hand out speeding tickets, so what? It would only be some roads. In this public monopoly, there are no alternatives, you're stuck with the ever-compounding ineptitude of government.

[Guillermo]

This is stupid. In order to test this, you would need to compare mean accident rates between areas with and without speed limits.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by mx73someday


If a private road owner tried to enforce the same revenue generating regulations that government does, they'd very quickly lose their customers to friendlier and more innovative competing roads.

I'm sure the owners of Deerfoot would be crapping their pants at the innovation Barlow Trail's owners could come up with (Stoney Trail would cost a shitload to buy and operate, I can't see anything cheap going on there). Its really a wonder why Torontonians don't use the ample (free) alternatives to the 407 either.



And even if some owners did hand out speeding tickets, so what?It would only be some roads.

That's the point of the thread. Your "simple solution" wouldn't be a solution at all, just replacing the people who want the money.


In this public monopoly, there are no alternatives, you're stuck with the ever-compounding ineptitude of government.

Government ineptitude vs. corporate greed. The Coquihalla and Highway 407 were both built with public money, one is now toll free and run by the government, one sends you a bill in the mail everytime you drive on it and is now run by private interests. What one is a better deal for the everyday driver?

And remember, if we "eliminated" public roads, EVERY road will have this scenario of being built with our tax dollars but would be sold to somebody who wishes to make a profit. That's like paying somebody to build you a house, then pay somebody else rent to live in it when they're finished.

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Government ineptitude vs. corporate greed. The Coquihalla and Highway 407 were both built with public money, one is now toll free and run by the government, one sends you a bill in the mail everytime you drive on it and is now run by private interests. What one is a better deal for the everyday driver?

Toll free does not mean free. Everyone pays half of their income to help pay for things like public roads. I'd much rather pay a bill in the mail for the things that I use.

Corporations are the products of government, I don't defend them. They may be privately owned, but they receive special privilege from government which I don't agree with.


Originally posted by kertejud2

And remember, if we "eliminated" public roads, EVERY road will have this scenario of being built with our tax dollars but would be sold to somebody who wishes to make a profit.

Well I would imagine that when the government sells all the roads to private owners that they use the money to pay off debt, and if there was any surplus the money would be returned to the individuals where it was stolen from. It's ridiculous to be told that each person in a country has a certain share of the national debt and not also be entitled to a proportional share of the assets of that country if it was sold off.


That's like paying somebody to build you a house, then pay somebody else rent to live in it when they're finished.

Haha, this is precisely what happens in the current system. You pay someone to build a house, which you may then claim to own. But then you are forced to pay property taxes to local governments. You don't actually own property if someone else is forcing you to perpetually pay them a fee in order to keep it. Ownership is full control over property, the true owners are the ones collecting the property taxes. A "home owner" is essentially someone renting the privilege of limited control over land.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by mx73someday

Haha, this is precisely what happens in the current system. You pay someone to build a house, which you may then claim to own. But then you are forced to pay property taxes to local governments. You don't actually own property if someone else is forcing you to perpetually pay them a fee in order to keep it. Ownership is full control over property, the true owners are the ones collecting the property taxes. A "home owner" is essentially someone renting the privilege of limited control over land.

What I can't get over is that you actually think you'd have options and competition for the services your taxes are paying for when you buy that house. If you eliminate government and replace everything with private owners one person will own the road your house is on. They can't build another road so you either pay what that person wants or you don't use the road (and thus don't leave the house). One person owns the water pipes to your house, you either pay what they want, or you don't get water. Same goes for the sewage pipes, the electricity, gas, etc.

So you're just replacing the government, who at least tries to give a shit about you even if they're not that good at it, with a bunch of individual owners who don't need to give a shit about you because you'll have no other options.


And it still doesn't solve the problem of using speeding tickets to generate revenue because its the most efficient fine.

[codetrap]

So, the part that I really don't understand is this. Everyone is bitching about the police. To my understanding, they don't get the revenue. The ticket revenue goes into the City and Province coffers. The city and the province are the ones making the laws.

So, why are the police the bad guys, when they're just following the instructions of the City and the Province to collect this "voluntary stupid tax".

Wouldn't it be a helluva lot more constructive to go after the source of the problem and voice your complaints directly to the people responsible for making the policies? I mean c'mon. Dayglow has said it a hundred times on this forum for how you can file complaints. So, instead of this self masturbatory bitching all the time, why aren't we seeing copies of the letters complaining to the policy makers?

Step up, or shut the fuck up already. :banghead:

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Guillermo
This is stupid. In order to test this, you would need to compare mean accident rates between areas with and without speed limits.

They did that on some highway in Montana a few years ago. Results showed that when the speed limit dissapeared, people on average drove slower, less accidents were reported, and less fatalities occurred. There's a thread somewhere on here devoted to it; look it up.

While I agree some areas should have speed limits (neighborhoods), I'm 100% against Deerfoot, Stoney, and Highway 2 having a speed limit. Let people drive as fast as the roads permit because that way they will be watching the road instead of watching for cops.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Cos]

Originally posted by Feruk


They did that on some highway in Montana a few years ago. Results showed that when the speed limit dissapeared, people on average drove slower, less accidents were reported, and less fatalities occurred. There's a thread somewhere on here devoted to it; look it up.

While I agree some areas should have speed limits (neighborhoods), I'm 100% against Deerfoot, Stoney, and Highway 2 having a speed limit. Let people drive as fast as the roads permit because that way they will be watching the road instead of watching for cops.

I agree with everything except deerfoot. Maybe non-peak times you can have no speed limit, but I drive it in rush hour and it is scary as shit most mornings.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Feruk


They did that on some highway in Montana a few years ago. Results showed that when the speed limit dissapeared, people on average drove slower, less accidents were reported, and less fatalities occurred. There's a thread somewhere on here devoted to it; look it up.

Thats the same idea behind "shared spaces" in Europe. No street signs, no speed limits. Forces people to think for themselves rather than a sign telling them what to do. People drive on avg 20km/h slower and fewer accidents happen. And thats with bikes/pedestrians sharing the same space.

[01RedDX]

.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by arian_ma

Friday night statistics do not represent every day statistics.
Checkstop runs Wednesday through Saturday... get your facts straight before running your mouth. That's 4/7 nights per week.

And I'm not saying there are millions of drunk drivers on the road every second of every day, but it's certainly more prevalent than you seem to think.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by gretz


hahaahaah... yes...

It seems the cops on here only chime in when they can shoot down someone's opinion - when asked a question or challenged, they kind of veer to another post they can pick apart... it seems...

15-20% have had at least one drink? That would put them over the limit correct (or at least a reason to have to blow)? How many people do you get through the checkstop?

Crazy how many people drink and drive on a Friday - that should be on the news...
Aaaaannnnndd you're done.

Very astute conclusions you've come to there, but you're wrong.

[gretz]

Originally posted by JustGo

Aaaaannnnndd you're done.

Very astute conclusions you've come to there, but you're wrong.

Comes back only to pick apart old posts... and im wrong in saying so?

15-20% admit to having AT LEAST one drink (as you put it) - Would you not suggest they blow if they admit to consuming alcohol? Thats wrong I guess...

How many people do you get through the checkstop? Must have been a wrong question too...

15-20% of people drink and drive on a given night (4/7 days a week according to you) - me thinking that is newsworthy is also wrong

I wasn't being negative (as you took it) - the stats you gave just seemed unbelievable... which is why I asked questons, which was wrong I guess

im wrong and you're right > as I said before you called me out for being so very incorrect with my astute conclusions drawn from info. you posted... sorry :dunno:

[AaronK]

I have to agree, I dont think speeding is the cause of most accidents, its dumb drivers.

[Toma]

I see nothing wrong with drinking and driving.... especially a drink or 3. EVERYONE does it if they drink at all.

Studies have now PROVEN that the legal limit (0.08) does not impair a driver as much as being moderately tired.

We live in such a brainwashed culture. I puke in my mouth a little everytime I hear a MADD commercial on the radio.

When they have zero tolerence policy (ie, 1 drink yields you a 24 hour suspension), or when they can take your car and give you a criminal record for refusing to blow.... reminds me that we really do live in a NAZI country.

Oh well. :dunno:

At least we have nice weather :poosie:

[calgary403]

Originally posted by JustGo

Aaaaannnnndd you're done.

Very astute conclusions you've come to there, but you're wrong.

So you ready to follow suit and get out of the fishing holes? Or are you guys still telling yourselves that speeding is a HUGE problem? But why try and do something that would save lives when there's money to be made right? :dunno:

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2010/09/16/15367286.html

[codetrap]

Originally posted by calgary403


So you ready to follow suit and get out of the fishing holes? Or are you guys still telling yourselves that speeding is a HUGE problem? But why try and do something that would save lives when there's money to be made right? :dunno:

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2010/09/16/15367286.html

<Rant>

Wow. If I was one of the officers that came to this forum, I'd give you all a big fuck you and leave. Why on earth would they bother coming back here over and over just to have a bunch of guys with obvious "axes to grind" act like total douches to them. You guys are ragging on them for stuff that's totally out of their control, like it's personally their fault, and when they try and defend their careers, you act like judge jury and executioner. I'm pretty sure that if anyone came and attacked your chosen career you'd want to defend it to, even if you personally didn't agree with some of the practices. However, since they've made it obvious that they're police, they're also limited in what they can and can't say to a degree, so they probably can't even fully defend themselves to prevent repercussions at work.

How would you guys like it to be personally held responsible for the actions of whatever company you worked for? "Oh hai, you live in Alberta? Well FUCK YOU FOR KILLING THOSE DUCKS YOU BASTARD!" Real fair. The police guys here came here because they as guys wanted to, and they chose to reveal what they did and answer questions with some credibility to be helpful. They've also made it abundantly clear that if you REALLY WANT THINGS TO CHANGE then you have to step up and PARTICIPATE, not just be some pussy behind a keyboard whining bitching and moaning like your monkey's got a nosebleed and it's clogged with sand. Seriously, enough already.
</Rant>

Ok. Now off to have some coffee to ditch this caffeine headache.

[frizzlefry]

Looks like the CPS are still going to run the traps. Undeterred by reason.

sigh (http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/09/16/15378131.html)

[codetrap]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
Looks like the voluntary stupid taxpayers are still going to be harvested like the sheep they are. Undeterred by reason.

sigh (http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/09/16/15378131.html)

Fixed.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Paying over, and over, and over, and over. The whole time complaining about how unfair it is, even though they have the unused power to change it.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by codetrap


Fixed.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Paying over, and over, and over, and over. The whole time complaining about how unfair it is, even though they have the unused power to change it.

Oh I don't pay anything. I am quite stealthed. I don't mind spending a grand on measures that will prevent the city from picking my pocket.