Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

chavela · 2013-04-08 17:09:41

Today's A A-S letter to the editor spurred me to action on this: why do we need 100 more police just because we are opening the trails at night?
1. The letter writer asked, in essence, aren't they patrolling these areas already, especially since they were, until being opened, "deserted" and therefore perhaps more subject to crime?

2. My knowledge of police strategy is that random patrols have pretty much been discredited as an effective means of crime prevention (see http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors … df#page=73, http://www.popcenter.org/library/readin … sGuide.pdf and many others), which is why so many PDs have adopted COMPSTAT--including AFD!--on the theory that crime and disorder are heavily concentrated, and you can be most effective allocating resources based on crime statistics: where have crimes happened? So do we have any evidence that crime goes up when trails are open at night? Were there many crimes reported on them before?

4. I don't feel safer with police all over the place! It actually makes me uncomfortable, like Big Brother is there. Why not a "Neigborhood Watch" for the trails, instead? They did it in Utah and the Int. Assoc. of Chiefs of Police said it was a great idea: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e08071596.pdf.

So has anyone else had concerns about why we need all these extra police? This is a LOT of money, takes resources from other things, and comes out of our pockets.

Thanks,

Elizabeth Gray

AusTexMurf · 2013-04-09 09:04:11

No, no, no.
Perfectly safe as is. Been commuting on them late night and early morning so many times, for so many years. No probs.
That many police would make me feel uncomfortable in our park, on our trails.
No, thanks.

Donald Lewis · 2013-04-09 11:21:08

AusTexMurf wrote:

No, no, no.
Perfectly safe as is. Been commuting on them late night and early morning so many times, for so many years. No probs.
That many police would make me feel uncomfortable in our park, on our trails.
No, thanks.

Why? They would probably be cyclists themselves.

Don

dougmc · 2013-04-09 11:52:37

One hundred police. If they all work 40 hour shifts, that's about 25 on duty at any given time, day or night.

Wouldn't that make these trails some of the most heavily patrolled parts of town, rivalling even Sixth street?

Unless we've got a bunch more trails than I'm aware of, assuming that the cops work in pairs and are on bicycles, that could have the cops patrolling just about every part of every trail several times an hour. 24/7.

Seems excessive, especially considering that many didn't even know the trails were off-limits at night and used them without incident to get around.

MichaelBluejay · 2013-04-09 14:35:19

Whoa, let's back way the heck up. Where's the source that says APD wants 100 more officers just to patrol the trails? My understanding is that they want 100 more officers to deal with Austin's *growth*, and that additional resources for opening the trails at night is very small.

damicoaustin · 2013-04-09 15:37:54

This says about 24: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim … ers/nW74m/

Also See: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim … ils/nWKzr/

But this from a department that felt compelled to have at least 6 officers standing around watching the occupy movement at City Hall.

chavela · 2013-04-10 18:11:27

Thanks, Michael--They are asking for 100 total and only some of those are for bike trails. I appreciate the clarification--I knew that but didn't write my post clearly at all. And, I am going to write my Councilmembers and tell them I don't think these 24 cops are needed for trails. The paper has not reported any opposition to APD's proposal, and I think it's important for the Council to know that not everyone agrees with this. I encourage others to share their feelings as well.

Elizabeth

AusTexMurf · 2013-04-11 08:31:18

Donald Lewis wrote:

AusTexMurf wrote:
No, no, no.
Perfectly safe as is. Been commuting on them late night and early morning so many times, for so many years. No probs.
That many police would make me feel uncomfortable in our park, on our trails.
No, thanks.
Why? They would probably be cyclists themselves.
Don

Why ? Cyclists or no, I don't want a police state type domination in our parks and trail systems. I have used the lake trail system so, so many times and never felt in any sort of danger nor never would I have felt or been more secure had there been a greatly increased police presence. I have ridden pedicabs downtown for the past 9 years and always get to work and home by crossing the lake and using at least some of the trail system to do so. No problems or indications of possible problems, ever. In fact, I have enjoyed many late night, impromptu drum circles, poetry slams, piano jams, pickup/jam bands, etc..., in other words austin culture that has been free to gather on the bridges, in the gazebos, and just in the park, up until this point. I am concerned that all of the police presence would put a kibosh on all of that freedom.
It has been part of Austin's color/flavor for me for the past 10+ years.

I'll tell you where we can use the additional police downtown.

Patrolling the roads for drunk drivers leaving downtown and driving around late at night.
This is the real problem around the downtown area, not bicyclists or pedestrians using the trail.
Get a handle on all of the DWI issues around our town, particularly late night.

Not rocket science, just no one wants to own what a problem (and big business) drinking and driving in our town really is......

My $0.02.

owlman · 2013-04-11 10:42:35

"A police state type domination in our parks" gimme a break... Sure there will be some who fear that, but I think an increased police presence may be helpful in encouraging some people to use relatively deserted, often poorly-lit trails late at night. There are people who currently would feel safer on a busy road than off in some dark wooded trail. Whether APD really needs 24 new officers, I dunno (sounds like a lot), but I don't think more cops walking/biking around night is a bad thing.

Last edited by owlman (2013-04-11 10:42:55)

Donald Lewis · 2013-04-11 11:52:53

owlman wrote:

"A police state type domination in our parks" gimme a break... Sure there will be some who fear that, but I think an increased police presence may be helpful in encouraging some people to use relatively deserted, often poorly-lit trails late at night. There are people who currently would feel safer on a busy road than off in some dark wooded trail. Whether APD really needs 24 new officers, I dunno (sounds like a lot), but I don't think more cops walking/biking around night is a bad thing.

I agree. Fear of "a police state type domination in our parks" is quite a stretch. If I used the trails at night I would look forward to meeting and making friends with some cop cyclists. There have been assaults of women joggers on our park trails and I think many women -- obviously not all -- would be more likely to bike the trails at night with police presence. I just can't feel threatened by a cop riding his bike down our shared path at night. Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think the cops on the trail will be same kind of cops who work the interstate profiling motorists to try to make drug busts.

Don in Austin

chavela · 2013-04-11 16:47:32

The point is to use our tax dollars in the most effective way for crime prevention. Predictive policing, using data to ascertain trends and pro-actively assign officers to specifically address those areas/issues has proven WAY more effective than random patrols. Ask APD: they've invested lots of money in their COMPSTAT program, because that is what works.

Cops are expensive, and I want to pay for results, performance based. And as a woman--please allow us to speak for ourselves-- I would much rather have the predictive policing going after the known (after analysis, the unknown becomes visible/obvious) problem than random patrols.

Hiring 24 cops to cruise the trails is expensive, relatively ineffective, and does infringe on my desire not to live in a police state.

Donald Lewis · 2013-04-11 20:35:49

chavela wrote:

The point is to use our tax dollars in the most effective way for crime prevention. Predictive policing, using data to ascertain trends and pro-actively assign officers to specifically address those areas/issues has proven WAY more effective than random patrols. Ask APD: they've invested lots of money in their COMPSTAT program, because that is what works.
Cops are expensive, and I want to pay for results, performance based. And as a woman--please allow us to speak for ourselves-- I would much rather have the predictive policing going after the known (after analysis, the unknown becomes visible/obvious) problem than random patrols.
Hiring 24 cops to cruise the trails is expensive, relatively ineffective, and does infringe on my desire not to live in a police state.

Women are individuals with different opinions. I brought this subject up tonight with one of my riding buddies who is a woman, and she said she would welcome police presence for safety if she rode the trails at night. Obviously I don't speak for you and never intended to. Please note I said "many, not all....."

The most efficient use of police resources is certainly debatable, but I am having a problem understanding how some cops riding their bikes on trails would create a "police state." Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "police state." So if cops are patrolling downtown streets at 2:00 Am Saturday morning, which is reasonable given the high incidence of drunken driving, does that make downtown Austin a "police state?" To me, it simply makes it safer than it would be without them.

AusTexMurf · 2013-04-12 08:20:04

owlman wrote:

"A police state type domination in our parks" gimme a break... Sure there will be some who fear that, but I think an increased police presence may be helpful in encouraging some people to use relatively deserted, often poorly-lit trails late at night. There are people who currently would feel safer on a busy road than off in some dark wooded trail. Whether APD really needs 24 new officers, I dunno (sounds like a lot), but I don't think more cops walking/biking around night is a bad thing.

People have been using the trail system, every single night, safely, almost without incident, for years.
I know. I have. And will continue to do so. Because I expect to do so and I do so safely. Without fear.
No police needed to make me 'feel' safe. I use these routes as part of my commute to work my job.

We need more police patroling our roads to increase safety, not the hike and bike trail.
Look at the safety record on our downtown roads versus incidents on the hike and bike trail.
My opinion is that the more significant problems occurs on the roads at night in the downtown area.
Can't believe I have to defend this to cyclists in our community.
My thought is that you are more likely to encounter danger from an impaired driver on the road than by the possibility of violence on our hike and bike trail. Much more so.
I have used the trail early evening and returning through around 3:30am or even later, as a commuter cyclist.
I have used the trail in the dark as a runner as early as 4:30 and never encountered any danger that police presence would have prevented.
Not once in 16 years of making the same commute.

Now ask how many times I have felt that impaired motorists created a dangerous situation around our downtown area late at night.

Just doesn't make sense to me.
Please spend our money some other way, thanks.

My opinion.

Last edited by AusTexMurf (2013-04-12 08:27:29)

dougmc · 2013-04-12 12:55:44

Donald Lewis wrote:

does that make downtown Austin a "police state?"

Channelling Captain Obvious here, this is a very heavily loaded term, and means very different things to different people.

If somebody thinks that "police state" means "police are often seen", then yes it does.

If somebody thinks that "police state" means you'll be stopped every five minutes and asked for your papers, that you'll need a permit to travel anywhere, etc. ... probably not.

(And no, I'm not arguing which view is correct. As I said, it means different things to different people.)

AusTexMurf · 2013-04-12 21:10:49

dougmc wrote:

Donald Lewis wrote:
does that make downtown Austin a "police state?"
Channelling Captain Obvious here, this is a very heavily loaded term, and means very different things to different people.
If somebody thinks that "police state" means "police are often seen", then yes it does.
If somebody thinks that "police state" means you'll be stopped every five minutes and asked for your papers, that you'll need a permit to travel anywhere, etc. ... probably not.
(And no, I'm not arguing which view is correct. As I said, it means different things to different people.)

That was imbedded in my reply to 100 officers on our hike and bike trail system, before the correction.
And also, what I said about the freedom and diversity of gathering/gatherers I mentioned over the years......I do think the spontaneity and freedom that allows things like jam sessions, musicians, poetry slams, etc.... that I have witnessed over the years will possibly come to and end. Maybe.

And I don't feel in danger late at night on the trail system now. Nor would a greatly increased police presence on the trail system make me feel safer or more comfortable. If anything, less so.

Police patrolling the main arterial exits and auto traffic flow at night, esp bar closing, might help make our roads safer for cyclists, pedestrians, or anyone else commuting in our central city along our road system.

That's it. Just my opinion. I have seen so many stupid things done by stupid drivers downtown, late night. To me, this is the bigger danger to my safety. And yours, if you are out riding a bike in that boozy soup.

Donald Lewis · 2013-05-30 23:13:41

Austin hike and bike trails to open 24/7

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/aust … o-open-247

Don in Austin

Bicycle Austin forum

#1 2013-04-08 17:09:41

Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#2 2013-04-09 09:04:11

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#3 2013-04-09 11:21:08

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#4 2013-04-09 11:52:37

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#5 2013-04-09 14:35:19

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#6 2013-04-09 15:37:54

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#7 2013-04-10 18:11:27

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#8 2013-04-11 08:31:18

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#9 2013-04-11 10:42:35

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#10 2013-04-11 11:52:53

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#11 2013-04-11 16:47:32

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#12 2013-04-11 20:35:49

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#13 2013-04-12 08:20:04

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#14 2013-04-12 12:55:44

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#15 2013-04-12 21:10:49

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

#16 2013-05-30 23:13:41

Re: Do we need more police for hike and bike trails?

Board footer