Aren Cambre’s Blog

University Park PD is soaking passing motorists with blatant speed traps:

This speed trap soaks southbount motorists on the US 75 access road approach to SMU Blvd.

UP City Manager Bob Livingston justified this cash grab with, “The location is one, if not the highest, site for injury and non-injury accidents in the City.”

It’s because of red light runners, Bob. Speed enforcement doesn’t make people respect red lights. Even my 5 year old son could guess that.

If you see this car in your rearview mirror, you won the reverse lottery!

Per today’s press release, the Texas DPS’s holiday “special concern” is “drinking and driving,” but that doesn’t stop them from a colossal revenue grab.

In 2007, at least 80%* of their holiday moving violation tickets were revenue enhancement speeding tickets. Their stated “special focus” suggests the same will happen again.

The Texas Legislature created our 70 mph rural speed limit in 1963. Now, if you can tell me what an arbitrary number, picked out of a hat 45 years ago, has to do with road safety… You get the point: NOTHING!

So, yes, fully eighty percent of TxDPS’s holiday moving violation activity is  revenue enhancement. This is what passes for highway policing?

Thank you, Texas DPS: revenue first.

*80% is from speeding tickets / (total citations - seat belt violations).

A Dallas Morning News blog article says cops are running ticket mills in White Rock Lake park. The crime? Bicyclists running stop signs.

Even though I am frustrated by White Rock Lake bicyclists, I believe this enforcement is moronic for two reasons.

One is profit. That’s traffic enforcement’s purpose. Well, that and a loophole around constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Traffic enforcement rarely peeks into unprofitable areas.

The other is revenge. Let me explain.

I think motorists are justifiably upset at arrogant bicyclists. Commenters on the DMN blog and my experience confirm many who:

• Decline to yield when entering a roadway.
• Decline to use a special bridge intended for them. Instead, they choose to endanger themselves and motorists by cycling amidst traffic running three times as fast. (I’ll give them medals for bravery! They don’t even have the visibility and protection of vehicles!)
• Do things just to provoke motorists.
• Have holier-than-thou attitudes againt cars.
• Ride 3-4 abreast, making it difficult to safely pass them.
• Decline to watch out for pedestrians.

What’s the stop sign’s point? Mitigate right of way issues. That’s it.

Compared to cars, cyclists travel slowly. They have plenty long to review intersections and make right of way judgments. They rarely need a full stop. Why force them?

Full and complete stops don’t address any of the above problems. That’s why I believe this is simply revenge.

Add the simpleton logic of “it’s the law so it should be enforced,” and it becomes sweet revenge.

I don’t subscribe to simpleton logic, so I don’t approve victimizing bicyclists with this revenge, profit-fueled ticket mill.

Recently, the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department (DCSD) aggressively increased revenue enhancement traffic patrols. Now the DCSD runs prolific speed traps on the safest roads where one’s speed choice is barely relevant patrols all freeways in the southern half of Dallas County and is seeking more freeway patrol duties.

The Dallas Morning News explains:

The department patrols unincorporated areas of Dallas County in the southern sector – a shrinking area of only about 9,000 residents. (source)

Texas sheriffs have full countywide jurisdiction, but their traditional police mandate is to patrol unincorporated county land. The DCSD’s policing mandate is shrinking with this unincorporated land.

Dallas County Commissioners are loathe to spend scarce resources only to duplicate city police. An impending $20 million county deficit seals this point.

As the rural mandate and dollars go away, all incentive is–literally–on revenue enhancement. (Disagree? See why Dallas County started constable traffic patrols.)

Dallas County, meet your new sheriff’s department: home of Texas’s most incompetently-managed jails and revenue patrols.

I feel so much safer!

In October 1995, Dallas County, Texas funded new constable traffic patrol units in south Dallas County. Their explicit purpose was to generate profit through speed enforcement. Projected revenues were 200% of costs, meaning 100% profit.

In 1999, Dallas County expanded constable traffic patrols into the city of Dallas. At the time, Commissioner John Wiley Price only hoped for “break even” revenue flows.

In 2000, Chief Deputy Constable Helen Hicks told the Dallas Morning News that the constables write an “extremely large” number of speeding tickets.

The anti-speed crusade has been so prolific that it has caused turf wars with the cities that were in the initial program. In 1996, DeSoto Police captain Warren Box said “The more [constable speed enforcement] we get to keep everyone slowed down, the happier I get.” However, by 2003, the Dallas Morning News characterized DeSoto City Manager Jim Baugh as expressing that constables should stop enforcing speed limits within his city and “do their main job – serve civil and criminal papers.” In fact, as of 2003, the cities of Duncanville, DeSoto, and Cedar Hill had asked the constables to back off their anti-speed crusade. However, Constable Roma Skinner flippantly dismissed the requests, saying that they “and $1 … could buy you a cup of coffee.”

The anti-speed crusade has also contributed significantly to $177 million in unpaid Dallas County traffic tickets and tens of thousands of outstanding, unserved constable warrants by July 2008.

In the face of a $34 million deficit for fiscal year 2008-2009, Dallas County commissioners have proposed eliminating constable traffic patrol units and a central processing center to save $6 million annually. Commissioners were “surprised” to learn that the traffic patrols alone operate at a net loss of $1 million.

Al Cercone, Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace, characterized the proposal as “foolish” because of lost traffic ticket revenue. Commissioner Maruine Dickey agrees. The Dallas Morning News characterized her view of traffic patrols as “doing their job generating money.” She further said that the end of the of traffic patrols would “really become a revenue loss for the county.”

The proposal to eliminate traffic patrols is partly in response to Justice Cercone joining 4 other justices in refusing to participate in a central ticket processing center. Not only is its legality questioned, the Justices don’t appreciate how the center sometimes adjudicates citations favorably to motorists. The center also wastes county staff time with sloppy letters, loses citations, and takes up to two years to properly route citations.

Dallas, TX resident Daniel Murphy recently received a $204 ticket for a paperwork violation. After unsuccessfully spending 12 phone hours trying to sort out payment, he eventually mailed a $204 check, hoping it would resolve.

Commissioners Court administrator Allen Clemson demonstrated complete obliviousness to the plight of victimized motorists, stating that the “concept” and “execution” of the central processing center are “good.”

On July 7, the County’s elected leadership resolved to eliminate the ticket processing center, shifting its resources back to Justice of the Peace courts.

Texas constables are certified peace officers with full jurisdiction in any precinct in their respective county. However, their traditional and statutorily-implied mandate is to handle light duty matters like providing court bailiffs, handling class C misdemeanor warrants, or serving civil notices. Sheriff’s offices traditionally handle heavier duty work like warrants for class A and B misdemeanors or felonies, routine patrols, and traffic enforcement.

Ironically, the constable anti-speed crusade has been so prolific the constables now have a backlog of 55,000 traffic-related warrants. This us up from 40,000 in September 2007, when Commissioner Price characterized the backlog as not being “unreasonable.”

Sources:

County constables issuing traffic tickets for first time – Safety in school zones, revenue from fines sought, Dallas Morning News, January 8, 1996

Aiming to serve better – Constable ’s office takes on new duties to fight Dallas speeders, Dallas Morning News, October 12, 1999

LEARNING TO PLAY IT SAFE – School zone rules enforced as students return, Dallas Morning News, August 13, 2000

Constables ‘ traffic tickets irritate some – Cities want enforcement suspended, Dallas Morning News, February 21, 2003

County constables will soon serve felony warrants – Intent to ease backlog, but some say deputies aren’t prepared for risk, Dallas Morning News, September 20, 2007

Dallas County commissioners propose deal to eliminate traffic units, Dallas Morning News, June 27, 2008

Dallas County trying to raise fine collection rate, Dallas Morning News, June 24, 2008

As motorists’ frustration rises, justices of the peace pull out of automated ticket payment program, Dallas Morning News, July 5, 2008

Dallas County to scrap central collections for traffic tickets, Dallas Morning News, July 7, 2008

We were involved in a minor wreck today. Not our fault; an unobservant driver ran into our car, which was stuck in traffic leaving some parade.

The incredible part is the Dallas County Sheriff, Lupe Valdez, was in uniform and sitting in the open bed of a Dallas County Sheriff’s truck, also stuck in traffic, no more than 30 feet line of sight from us. Because of barriers, she would have had to walk about 100 or so feet to get to us.

While my head still feels shaken 2 hours later, the wreck probably was minor. An amateur investigation of the car could only find two dimples in the rear bumper from the other car’s front license plate.

Did the sheriff bother to help? Did she even acknowledge my shouted question of whether she saw the crash?

Nope. She and her non-uniformed cohorts just sat in the truck, gave a blank stare, and did nothing.

I am floored. I guess as an average citizen, I am in her “flyover country.”

I have a picture. I can’t share it yet. But I will as soon as I can.

UPDATE: I got a letter similar to this published in the Dallas Morning News! (link)

Dallas is about to harass and annoy motorists with its own “me, too” cell phone law.

As I blogged earlier, several studies affirm that hands free phone use is as dangerous as handheld phone use. Dallas’s proposal prohibits one but affirms the other. What sense does that make?

Is goal is to punish those too poor or feeble minded to have a hands free unit? School zone safety correlates to drivers’ social status or nerdiness?

Now distracted motorists must have both hands on the wheel. I feel safer already.

Thanks, city council!

In a bold move to punish technically unsophisticated or poor people, Texas’s third wealthiest city enacted a hand held cell phone ban in school zones. With this, Highland Park encourages equally dangerous hands-free use. But hey, as long as you’re rich or know Bluetooth, you’re teh awesomezor!

How “brave.” How “innovative.”

As if its outrageous property values aren’t already tax-tastic enough, Highland Park may soon enhance its traffic ticket profits by giving its cops another reason to hassle motorists: a proposed ordinance will ban cell phone use* within active school zones.

Why the asterisk? *Not applicable when hands-free mode used.

It’s a two-faced ordinance: you can’t talk on a cell phone but you can talk on a cell phone if you use your hands free unit.

But wait, you say, isn’t this about safety? Don’t you need your hands on the wheel?

The “inattention blindness” is equivalent for any cell phone user, so hand placement has minimal bearing on cell phone-related motorist safety. Several studies affirm this equal risk:

• “Driving impairment was just as bad regardless of whether participants used hands-free or hand-held cell phones.” (source)
• “…using a cell phone while driving is a major cause of traffic accidents, and that hands-free devices have little safety benefit.” (source)
• “…banning hand-held phone use won’t necessarily enhance safety if drivers simply switch to hands-free phones. Injury crash risk didn’t differ from one type of reported phone use to the other.” (source)
• “…motorists who talk on both handheld and hands-free cell phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.” (source)
• “…headsets and other hands-free devices are just as unsafe as any other type of cell phone.” (source)
• Etc.

By only banning “handed” cell phone use, Highland Park would tacitly endorse an unsafe activity.

Additionally, the law would concentrate profit enhancement punishment on those too poor or technologically unsophisticated to have hands free units, even though these groups may be equally unsafe as hands-free users.

I’ll close with an analogy: suppose a city has a river with too-low, flood-prone levees on each side. Banning only “handed” cell phone use is like only fortifying one levee. The net effect is minimal because whatever water would have flooded over the fortified levee will instead spill over the other, unfortified levee.

Highland Park should either leave the levees alone or fortify both levees. Only fortifying one levee–banning one unsafe activity while encouraging another unsafe activity–makes no sense, except as an anti-motorist profit ploy.

Today I saw a Trinity Vote (the “yes” crowd) brochure featuring a flooded Trinity River from 2007. Clearly they haven’t backed off the spirit of ignorant predictions of flooded roadways by former councilmen John Loza and Sandy Greyson.

Here’s the truth.

To inundate the toll road, a flood would have to crest at least 415.64 feet above sea level, and probably a few feet more due to a mini-levee on the toll road’s river side. That is at least per the designs. Click on the picture at right to see a higher resolution version.

The USGS’s Trinity Gage 08057000, (yes, it’s spelled “gage“) located near the Commerce St. bridge, has the river’s bottom at 368.02 feet above sea level. Simple mathematics says the river has to be at least 47.62 high, a whopping 17.62 feet above flood stage, to get on the toll road.

This gage has taken daily readings since 1987. I put the readings in a spreadsheet, ordered them by height, and found that the highest reading in these 20 years was 45.77 feet from May 3, 1990. This even includes readings not formally approved for publishing. Only 15 readings out of 11,814 (some days have more than one reading), or 0.1%, are even above 40 feet.

What does this mean? In the prior 20 years, the river never rose high enough to flood the road.

What’s clear is that if this road even floods, it’s going to be incredibly rare, possibly counted on one hand during a person’s lifetime.