Thoughts on Will Jawando

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

[Anonymous]

Im as liberal as they come and I think he’s a blow hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

Speed cameras are actually about safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

“The researchers also looked at crashes on camera-eligible roads in Montgomery County, relative to comparison roads in Virginia. They found that the cameras resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or an incapacitating injury, as reported by a police officer on the scene.”
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-cameras-reduce-injury-crashes-in-maryland-county-iihs-study-shows#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20cameras,police%20officer%20on%20the%20scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

They are a toll on dangerous drivers who drive 12 mph or more over the speed limit. Fortunately, you can avoid the toll - by not speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

They are a toll on dangerous drivers who drive 12 mph or more over the speed limit. Fortunately, you can avoid the toll - by not speeding.

I agree it’s a toll glad you agree it’s a toll.

It’s not a safety measure though, once again glad we agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

They are a toll on dangerous drivers who drive 12 mph or more over the speed limit. Fortunately, you can avoid the toll - by not speeding.

I agree it’s a toll glad you agree it’s a toll.

It’s not a safety measure though, once again glad we agree.

It's a toll on dangerous drivers. It's a safety measure. Don't speed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

“The researchers also looked at crashes on camera-eligible roads in Montgomery County, relative to comparison roads in Virginia. They found that the cameras resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or an incapacitating injury, as reported by a police officer on the scene.”
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-cameras-reduce-injury-crashes-in-maryland-county-iihs-study-shows#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20cameras,police%20officer%20on%20the%20scene.

Do you understand the article? It did not reduce crashes. It does not say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

They are a toll on dangerous drivers who drive 12 mph or more over the speed limit. Fortunately, you can avoid the toll - by not speeding.

I agree it’s a toll glad you agree it’s a toll.

It’s not a safety measure though, once again glad we agree.

I’m a DP. The data supports they are safety measures. See my quote (and related link) a couple of posts ago.

Arguing against public safety is why many on this thread won’t vote for Jawando. Making roads less safe isn’t a popular option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

“The researchers also looked at crashes on camera-eligible roads in Montgomery County, relative to comparison roads in Virginia. They found that the cameras resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or an incapacitating injury, as reported by a police officer on the scene.”
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-cameras-reduce-injury-crashes-in-maryland-county-iihs-study-shows#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20cameras,police%20officer%20on%20the%20scene.

Do you understand the article? It did not reduce crashes. It does not say that.

“Overall, the county's camera program in its current form — including the use of corridors and a minor enforcement change that took effect in 2009 — reduces the likelihood of fatal or incapacitating injuries by 39 percent on residential roads with speed limits of 25-35 mph. The estimate of 21,000 fatal or incapacitating injuries that cameras could prevent nationwide is based on that reduction.”

If you’re concerned about a minute detail, the article clearly shows that they dramatically reduce the severity of injuries and the likelihood of death. I’d say that’s a win for traffic safety. The alternative is more injuries and additional deaths?

Again. Fighting safety is not a good look here on DCUM or for a politician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

So, if Jawando doesn't want the police to enforce public safety laws, then why should anyone follow these laws? Clearly, Jawando thinks they are nbd, so the cops shouldn't enforce them.

Are you suggesting that Jawando doesn't care if people break laws?