"one-time" audio digitizing

I'm not "bitching" about it. Note my earlier reply to Robert:

"(Note that I'm not complaining here but, rather, truly wondering what the "science" behind any such "policy" must be)"

See above.

-----------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're making some (faulty) assumptions, here.

This isn't a "commercial" or a PSA. It's not something where you can sit down, listen to the N minutes of audio you laid down, decide *if* it is "good enough" and then depart. Then, come back next week to record something *different*, etc.

Note that I have explicitly mentioned the need to *analyze* the samples (see above quote), not "listen to" them.

E.g., one use is in building voices for speech synthesizers. The "recording session" is long and tedious. It is hard for a person to recite long lists of "nonsense words" while trying to maintain a "constant" speech pattern -- since the synthesizer may end up selecting a "unit" (phone, diphone, half-phone, etc.) from a "word" recorded at the start of the session and marrying it to a unit selected from a word recorded 15 minutes later in that same session. If the speaker's speech patterns have changed noticeably while reciting those words, you end up with crap.

But, you (me) don't even have access to those "units" in the recording studio! Instead, you have to crunch the data to identify and isolate them. Then, build the sample voice. Then, listen to *it* reciting real text to decide how good the set of units EXTRACTED FROM THE RECORDED AUDIO SAMPLE happen to be!

If the results aren't acceptable, you repeat the process.

If the "audio" results ARE acceptable but there is a lot of cuft in the signal (ambulance driving by), then you have to repeat the exercise. *Back* to the recording studio. Recite another/same set of nonsense words. Hopefully be able to recreate the exact physical and electrical environments. Then, *pray* that your speaker can mimic their earlier "performance" (lest you end up with the variation that I mentioned previously).

To put things in numerical perspective, English has ~50 phones. So, conceptually, a diphone-based synthesizer needs ~2500 diphones in its unit inventory. Granted, each "nonsense word" can contain more than one diphone (i.e., if you could get

5 *unique* diphones in each word, the speaker would only need to recite 500 words -- in the same manner, etc.). But, in practice, its not that easy.

Other languages have more -- or less.

And, remember that you are selecting "speakers" based on the qualities of their natural voices. I.e., it may be an actor/actress hired just to provide speech samples. So, if they have to make repeated visits to this "studio" each time you uncover some problem with the previous sample set, it gets to be tedious -- on all involved.

[Imagine if *you* were that "voice model/actress" asked to return for the THIRD TIME to repeat more nonsense words... how much quality/effort are you likely to invest?]

Well, man, something's gotta give.

You've made some rather strongly contradictive requirements here: it _must_ be at your home, so it'll be convenient, but it _cannot_ be at your home, because you're sure your largely undisclosed actual requirements in terms of acoustic isolation can't be met there.

So there's your bullet. Bite it.

You're asking for a level of quality you don't know how to get yourself. So you'll need to either improve your skills (and tools!) in that area significantly (possibly disturbing the peace at home), or you'll have to seek professional assistance (probably by leaving your paceful home).

Well, in theory there's a third alternative: you might convince a team of professional sound technicians to come to your home with all their equipment, for as long and as often as it takes to make those mystery recordings. Evidently the price tag attached to that kind of service would blow that nice new ceiling right off your kitchen ;-P, so let's assume that's out of the question, shall we?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To sum up what you just said: you need a machine to tell you that there was an ambulance (or whatever) driving by when a recording was made. There's a good reason to go with a studio right there -- they have people there who can hear that sort of thing in a recording.

If I'm professional, and the need has been explained to me, and I'm getting paid by the hour -- just as much as I did the first time.

If your talent won't do that, then they're not pros.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Obviously, you can hear if an ambulance -- or other "obvious" bit of cruft got into the recording. What you need a machine to tell you is how SLICING UP those nonsense words into their component parts and then RECOMBINING THEM based on a set of complex algorithms will actually *sound* to a real user.

Has the background noise changed from one FRACTIONAL WORD to another? Has the speakers mouth moved such that the spectral composition of their voice has changed? Has the absolute *level* or rate changed? etc.

They *won't* have people who can do the above!

Can you listen to a set of words -- possibly separated in time by many minutes/hours so they have different "textures" -- and identify how this *part* of this word will sound when "glued" to *that* part of some *other* word... followed by a part of a *different* word and then wrapped in a prosodic envelope?

WITHOUT the benefit of a machine that knows how to piece all of those things together (after manual guidance in "slicing" those words)?

How "professional" they are won't matter. It's just *hard* to make your "biological instrument" (voice) repeatable when the units in question aren't things that you (as a human) think of as "natural".

I.e., try reciting a set of 100 words and then gluing them (*whole* words!) together in (grammatically correct) sequences and see how good it sounds. (hint: it won't)

Now, imagine gluing *parts* of words together and imagine the results you'll get.

Finally, imagine asking someone to control their "biological instrument" SUCH THAT these results are "as good as possible".

You (the "professional") don't have any feedback on which to gauge your performance. Just a phone call 4 days later after the numbers have been crunched saying "We've got to try again..."

You (the pro) simply aren't equipped to deal with the problem.

No, I didn't say it *must* be at my home! Rather, I pointed out the other issues related to the gathering and processing of the audio samples (note that here we are just talking about "speech"). That there are aspects of the process that won't fit in the typical "recording studio" and "recording SESSION".

You've assumed there are just two options. I only stated those as two *possible* options. Specifically, I asked:

"Any suggestions as to how to give each approach the best possible conditions (i.e., compare audigy2 at its best to extigy at *its* best IN MY ENVIRONMENT)?"

(i.e., how best to evaluate an internal sound card vs. external sound "box" such that each "shines")

"Or, is this an unnecessary exercise as the result is already known (to someone)?"

(i.e., does someone already KNOW that the external box will be significantly better performing than the internal? Or, that there will be NO difference? Or, that both will suck??)

"Or, some other option that I haven't yet considered?"

(for example, a piece of pro kit that is somewhat portable that could make these "sessions" more palatable to me and the "speaker"/performer. I.e., Boudewijn suggested "Simple Delta-Sigma ADC -> SPI input -> SD card / USB MSC" which I assumed to represent some *device* that I could purchase and TAKE WITH to a place more convenient to the performer and myself)

Or, purchase *better* tools! (no one has told me that the sound card or external box is a "non-starter"... though this idea is disparaged in some of the OSS speech groups!)

Consider I'll spend a few $K on each "performer" plus tens of $K processing the "data". So, if dropping $5-10K on better tools makes this easier, that's "chump change".

I can't see that environment (esp 4 people in the room) working for me. Too much risk of extraneous noises -- someone moving their chair, coughing, shuffling their feet, flipping through papers, etc. But, there would be no *need* for anyone other than the performer to be in the room/booth. Esp if there is a "display" or some other means of communicating with them (obviously).

I also think an ad/commercial has lower expectations than what I need. E.g., could you see recording a "talking book" ("books on tape" or whatever they call them nowadays) in that setting? OTOH, a commercial is "fleeting" in nature... gone after the marketing campaign is over. And, not evaluated by the listener in terms of its "technical merit" (they don't care if you have a constant background hiss in the commercial)

I've been speaking with people who have "professionally"/commercially produced A/V products to get a feel for the effort they expend. Most put very little time into the actual post-production processing. It's basically "whatever it is, it is" -- no doubt because do-overs are expensive and not always easy to do (gathering up the performers, production staff, etc.). In many cases, the do-overs are fairly obvious (hence the need for professionals called "continuity" :> ).

E.g., your "ads" can simply be redone "in their entirety", worst case. It's 30 seconds, start to finish, so just run it again. And again. Etc. Considerably harder if you had to rework 30 one-second portions of an hour long "production" (esp since you won't know how good that rework was until you have a chance to *process* those portions and reintegrate them into the whole.

[I am gaining a healthy respect for movie makers from this process!]

Now, imagine hearing that ad (or portions of it) for hours at a time. You eventually come to recognize and identify particular portions of it by artifacts that might not have been obvious when you were producing it.

For example, I have some (allegedly) "live recordings" in which it is fairly obvious (after you've listened to them many times) that there are portions that are dubbed in -- crowd sounds, etc. I'm sure the producers figured no one would ever notice them -- and most folks probably don't -- but the more you hear them repeated, the more likely your ear is to pick up those patterns.

Imagine the R sound formed from the concatenation of the AR and RB diphones (I am using bogounits, here) is distinctly different from the R sound formed from the concatenation of the IR and RA diphones. Then, every word that includes this AR-RB sequence will "stand out" in your mind (in your ear?). Because you will hear it, literally, repeated in all such words.

It's like listening to someone who (consistently) mispronounces a particular word...

Around here, the firefighters are standing by for a call anyway (professional, not volunteer department), so we're paying them if the go on a run or not. But sure, you are putting some extra miles on the equipment.

Unless the guy with chest pains is 350lbs. The standard ambulance crew could probably get him out, although extra muscle would certainly reduce the risk of an injury to the firefighters (and one good disability claim will pay for a *lot* of "pointless" runs).

It's likely a mixed bag. Yes, you're going to (sometimes) be further from a major road, and (sometimes) be further out of position (relative to the fire house). OTOH, the crew is geared up and at most a few feet away from the truck, which is running, and that will save them the few minutes needed to get geared up on the way out of the firehouse.

But that's also the cost - a few miles of wear on the fire engine. And under normal circumstances, most fire stations are *not* very busy (in terms of going on calls), as they need to be sized for rather more than the "average" density of events. Anecdotally, in these parts fire engines seem to be replaced more for age than for wear.

contrary,

I'm sure there is a formal policy, and I'm sure thoughtful people have considered the options. While I'm rarely willing to blindly take someone's word that X is a good plan, presumably these are the experts on the subject, and absent evidence to the contrary, you have to assume the experts are doing they're job (after all, there simply isn't time in life to question the job everybody is doing). And while I've never looked into it in detail, it just strikes me as having very modest cost, but with substantial value on occasion, so it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

Growing up, we had volunteer fire departments (towns purchased and maintained equipment and facilities but staff was all volunteer). Ambulance calls didn't dispatch a fire truck because that tied up resources (people and equipment) that they didn't have "in surplus".

And, while the town was small (~30 sq mi), sending a vehicle out to a call at one end of town could seriously impact its ability to get to a call elsewhere in town (think: "back roads", rural). One fire station.

Sure! More (everything!) is usually better. More trucks, more staff, etc. I just question the rationale behind the policy and its origins.

E.g., I *never* question "rules" laid out in the NEC. I *know* they aren't "arbitrary" or designed to increase the amount of available work for electricians, etc. There's a *reason* counter outlets are spaced at 48" while outlets elsewhere in the house are 12' (?). There's a *reason* why bathroom/kitchen/outdoor outlets are GFCI. etc. You can imagine the "science" behind each of those decisions.

OTOH, every explanation I've heard re: the fire truck + ambulance issue has started with "It lets us ..." and lists capabilities that are possible/facilitated by the extra resources available. But, that's "obvious". E.g., I'm sure it would be "better" if my home town could dispatch a fire truck, ambulance *and* police officer on each call for assistance! I'm just not sure of the "science" behind that (cost-benefit analysis).

When you call the fire marshall and he can't tell you where (or why) to install smoke detectors, it doesn't inspire confidence in their understanding of the science that is supposedly driving their decisions (the "rules" regarding smoke detectors seem to vary by locality -- does the *science* vary as well?).

But I'm not sure that's the case at all! I.e., you don't know where the next call is going to come from. So, it could be

*closer* to your current (already dispatched) location.

Granted, "on average", you want to sit in the middle of your service area. But, with multiple fire stations to cover the greater metropolitan area, I don't know how hard and fast that "observation" would be.

I.e., in my home town, with its single fire station, being away from that point had a potentially serious impact on response time elsewhere in town. E.g., if you happened to be at the High School and had a call at my *home*, that would probably add several minutes to the normal response time. If you were out in some of the rural areas, considerably more.

OTOH, here, if the station "up the road" is out on a call, then the station *down* the road can service us.

Without the road salt, I think vehicles here tend to last much longer. I know back home they would replace the "shell" of the engine (to save money) while the frame/mechanics were better able to stand the test of time.

contrary,

It's not a question of *questioning* their jobs but, rather,

*understanding* their reasoning.

When (paint) rollers were first produced, many painters fought their use thinking it would cost jobs. Eventually, they realized that it allowed them to do *more* work so the jobs didn't go away but, rather, they found themselves on *more* of them (since more people could *afford* to have "rolled paint" than "brushed paint")

The few fire fighters I've asked only give the "It lets us..." reply. And, if I challenge that with "Well, why not send *two* trucks? Surely that would be EVEN BETTER!?" they get noticeably discomfited. As if "two is too many"; "OK, then why is *one* 'just right'?"

Nowadays, there are significant cuts to services -- in many municipalities, I assume. So, I look at this and wonder if it is the best way to use the diminishing resources that are available. And, wonder if the fire chief would be able to explain (other than "It lets us...") the policy if the cuts got to be even deeper?

contrary,

Interestingly, I was going to mention the NEC myself...

But I don't think firefighters are necessarily a good source of explanation of their policies. Just as electricians aren't (generally) much use justifying the NEC, or pilots aerodynamics or many of the procedures used there, or... It's just not their jobs, and most humans simply aren't interested in the deeper reasons, so we have rules prepared by people who's job that is specifically. Of course that has its downsides as well, how often have you seen someone blindly follow procedure and cause some nasty problem that should have been obvious to anyone thinking about it.

But the justification for one, and not two, fire trucks is probably as simple as there's a 5% chance of needing guys from an extra truck, and a .1% chancing of needing more guys than that. And since the fire truck exists anyway (but the second one may not, or be at a different station), the cost of a second may be far higher than one, for much less benefit.

There may also be a training aspect to getting people out on runs, particularly less experienced ones.

It's a good -- and bad -- example. Good because there *is* reason behind it. I chuckle when I hear folks complaining about constraints that it puts on them: "Why do I need an outlet *here*? I'm never going to use it..." or, "And why

*can't* I put the range and electric kiln on the same circuit? I know not to use both at the same time! And, even if I *do* use both at the same time, the circuit breaker will take care of any potential overload..."

I, OTOH, figure smarter minds than mine figured this stuff out -- often from post mortems of real-world "failures" (fires, deaths, etc.). So, instead of arguing with the "rules", I look to them as potential sources of information: "Gee, I wonder why electric outlets must be within 18" of the floor..."

But, electricians and firefighters are (IMO) different classes of people. Firefighters are in the business of saving life. Electricians aren't (though they aren't supposed to be "facilitating death" :> ).

I'm sure a firefighter understands the reason why he has to be aware of his own personal situation in a fire scene -- and know exactly where the "way out" is at all times. It's not the sort of thing you just blindly commit to memory (like we might commit the color code of resistor markings).

Or, *why* you fight a particular type of fire in a particular way. Because understanding *is* important.

By contrast, an electrician can "simply" (cough) remember all the "rules" and *know* that violating one is going to mean pain for him -- when the inspector refuses to pass the work.

Yup. I guess I come from too much of an engineering mindset. You don't just remember rules but understand the "why's". I.e., there is reason behind "derate 40%" not just "mantra".

But, regardless of number, you can always come up with those "N%" figures to explain/justify/ignore a particular policy. What I'd like to see is a careful analysis of why the "sweet spot" was chosen as it was (assuming that to have been the case).

E.g., in many jurisdictions, police officers are assigned in pairs (to cars). In others, singly. Is this a shortage of cars? officers? etc. If one is enough, why have two? Or, if two are needed, why only have *one*?

(there are a lot of policy decisions like this that we take for granted that have profound, presumably, financial and safety implications. But, they are never "explained" to us in a way that

*justifies* them -- i.e., "It lets us..." is not a justification.)

Dunno. I will ask a neighbor who's on the states "emergency preparedness" task force and see what he has to offer on the subject. I suspect that sort of "policy" has now become so entrenched that few could actually *point* to the science behind it -- and, that current attentions are focused on more (cough) "exotic" issues (based on some of the gear I see him carrying and "exercises" he's been participating in)

In article , Don Y wrote: ...

...

Looking around a year or so ago, better than voice grade digital audio recorders seemed start at around $150 for a hand held, integral microphone unit at the big box guitar store up to $600-$1000 for more complex units. I think Marantz is big in these, maybe Sony, too. Try at musical instrument and professional audio/video equipment suppliers.

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Actually electricians are, too. The only major difference is where in the multi-stage strategy society has put in place to avoid fatal accidents their work takes place.

The whole point of having a somewhat regulated profession like "electrician" is that those professionals (supposedly...) know how _not_ to make the kind of mistake that would kill people. I.e. they're meant to save people's lives by protecting them from the consequences of their own innocence.

... or when the home's fire insurance comes after him for a mistake the inspector failed to spot. Or, worse yet, lawyers hired by the deceased owner's estate...

Well, coming from a scientific mindset myself, one of my gripes with engineers' education has always been that they were taught to be _too_ willing to accept results without the actual understanding. Too many teachers made it look as if having just enough knowledge to find the applicable rules in your engineering handbook (and yes, they believed one book had to be enough!) was sufficient to be an engineer.

Whether or not one is enough may actually vary by region. There apparently are areas where a single policeman wouldn't be safe enough all on their own, so they ride in pairs for mutual protection. Other areas are simply so large that dispatching policemen in pairs would put spread their presence too thinly.

And then there's the question of witness statement acceptance. Some judges or district attorneys insist that they have two policemen's statements to outweigh contradicting claims by civilians, that, e.g., they did _not_ drive by that stop-sign. Dashboard cameras took some of that pressure away in jurisdictions where their footage is accepted as proof in court.

I see electricians' work as intending to minimize the chance of a person dying (by avoiding hazardous situations -- e.g., extension cords, overloaded circuits, etc.).

By contrast, a firefighter is usually responding to a situation that has "already gone bad".

But, often electricians don't *know* the "why's" behind the Code. I.e., give them a situation that the codebook doesn't explicitly cover and they flounder: "There's no rule to cover this". They can do their jobs "correctly" simply by remembering all of the rules (because the codebook covers all cases). No "understanding" is required.

[however, "knowing" all those rules is a daunting task -- hence the reason for Apprentice-Journeyman-Master... "repetition, repetition, repetition"]

Conversely, if the electrician can prove his work was "to code" (and vouchsafed by The Inspector -- and Inspection Report), the other party has a higher bar to deal with. I.e., if The Code failed to consider this possibility and that resulted in the loss of life...

A neighbor replaced his electrical service last year. The "drop" plus the entire electric panel. Inspector came by two or three times to check the work. Signed off on it each time.

This week, (natural) gas company is replacing some of the feeds in the neighborhood. His house is among those being serviced.

*Oooops*! (existing and, thus, replacement) Gas line is "within three feet of an ignition source" -- the electric panel. Hmmm... Inspector didn't notice this "little fact" on any of his several visits?

But, it gets better (?) :>

While running the new service to the house, neighbor opted to "save his back" and rent a back hoe to trench the new service. (utilities are below grade, here). In the process, "hooked" the gas main and, of course, tore it to shreds (there *are* advantages to using a shovel!)

So, the Inspector (I have no idea how many people that represents in these stories) was out at that time -- before the new panel went in -- to approve of the placement of the replacement gas line. Presumably he could *see* the old -- and new -- service drops (so, the location of the replacement gas line should have caught his attention, if it was wrongly located)

I've recently been engaged in an email discussion of "current education practices" as I've been out of school for many decades. It seems like there is an emphasis on "just do this to get *that* (result)". But, surely that isn't true of *all* schools/programs.

It also depends on the resources the community has for capital items -- like patrol cars. And, different criteria may apply to foot patrols, bike patrols, etc. An officer in a patrol car can seek the refuge of his car in A Bad Situation. Not true of one on foot (I've an image of a Python skit where the actors are shouting "Run away, run away")

Ah, hadn't considered that! Though I think most of those minor offenses tend to get a slap on the wrist (here) and don't even warrant the officer's time in court: "$100 fine or 10 hours community service. Next case..."

Thanks! I'll start with a "digital audio recorder" search with Marantz and Sony tie-ins and see where that leads me. (easier than bothering you with questions regarding how well they work, capabilities, etc.)

I'm confused. What's the point of this last line in light of the line preceding it? :-/

They don't necessarily have to. They just have to _follow_ the code.

It's still almost certainly a good idea to give them enough of an idea about the "why" that they'll see the code as something other than a set of arbitrary, pointless rules invented for no other purposes than to make their lives miserable.

And their work has to be monitored through a chain of inspectors, inspectors' inspectors, and so on all the way up to the people who really do know exactly why certain things cannot be allowed (and have the reputation and/or statistics to back them up). The only question that's really open for discussion is whether the upper end of that chain shall be a government agency or a private institution run, e.g., by a collaboration of insurance companies.

... then we should bloody well hope that at least in the long term, if that happens on anything like a regular basis, The Code will be amended accordingly. A good part of why that whole chain of inspection agencies is needed is to provide a way for information like that to be gathered and eventually transformed into rules.

OTOH there's no such thing as perfect safety. At some point the line has to be drawn beyond which the remaining risk is deemed practically impossible to reduce any further.

In the end life really is a rather risky way of spending your time on earth.

As long as the citizen receiving that slap on the wrist doesn't object, sure. The tricky business starts when citizens start challenging traffic tickets in earnest.

Around here that quite often happens when someone's latest exploit pushed their traffic offense record beyond the license revocation boundary (around here: 6 offenses of running-a-red-light severity in a certain time frame and your license is revoked, with no way to get it back for quite a while). People tend to get quite belligerent at that point, particularly if they need that license for their work. Challenging a policeman's testimony in court is well within the arsenal they'll consider.

In those U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted the three-strike rule, a similar reaction might ensue: what looks like a simple shop-lifting arrest could have the police facing a citizen fiercely defending his next 25 years of life outside prison. If you're going to push people to their limits with threats like that, you had better make sure those charges stick in court.

Exactly. By contrast, a firefighter needs to truly understand why you don't use water on an oil fire. And why you have to keep yourself between the flames and your exit.

A firefighter has to *think* about *this* situation. He can't simply rely on "rote learning" because there are too many variations in situations/conditions. Unlike an electrician who is just doing cookie-cutter work (almost always) where a set of rules *can* cover all possibilities.

Much of this turns on personalities, IMO. Some folks see the imposition of rules as threatening, counterproductive, contrarian, etc. Others (e.g., me) look to those rules and assume there is some real thinking behind them (not just a labor union trying to "make work" for their "members").

E.g., whenever I have to deal with a live circuit (whether it's household mains or a HV supply in a device), the mantra "One hand, only" runs through my head -- along with an image of a person with one hand in their pocket.

Of course, I don't literally work that way (since it is too common to *need* that second hand). But, the "rule" (mnemonic) reminds me of the *reason* behind it -- you need two points of electrical contact to put yourself at risk (the two hands being the most common -- and most hazardous as they put the heart directly in the circuit!). Using just one hand (i.e., keeping one hand in your pocket) minimizes this risk (rubber soled shoes, etc.).

Had this "one-hand rule" been *imposed* on me, I would have eventually fought it -- because it makes your job A LOT harder! OTOH, using it to remind yourself of the risks and how your behavior can mitigate or *aggravate* those risks makes it worthwhile!

Which does happen. E.g., in the 50's, it was common to wire a house with BX 14/2. Sometimes the "drain" wire was used as a token "safety ground". Other times, the jacket. Receptacles ("outlets") were typically two-prong. The number of outlet and lighting circuits in a residence was much less than today's norms.

With time, the number and demands of electrical appliances in the home increased -- dramatically. Folks studied fires, electrocutions, etc. and upgraded the Code to make the "safety/earth ground" a mandatory conductor. The ampacities of many typical circuits were upgraded (esp kitchen). Outlet spacings reduced to eliminate the need for (and, thus, the USE OF) extension cords. Etc.

Yes. Presumably, there is a cost-benefit analysis at play, there. How much is it worth to reduce the risk/loss?

How much is it worth having a fire truck available *with* the ambulance?

How much is it worth having *two* police officers in each squad?

Of course! Life is the leading cause of Death!

I think most municipalities will quickly throw out minor offenses. Or, offer the community service route as a less painful alternative for the "offender" in lieu of (the expense of) a real trial.

Curiously, one side effect of the tough stand taken regarding DUI's has been that folks are now more willing to *fight* on these offenses. "There's too much to lose".

Perhaps there is a "sweet spot" where people are more willing to change their behaviors (in a positive way) than risk this outcome.

I think the same may be true of many "crimes". If the punishment is too severe, the "criminal" will go to extraordinary measures to avoid punishment. E.g., a murderer realizing that he/she must "leave no witnesses" -- hence, compounding his/her crime.

Around here they don't get to decide that --- for starters because there are no municipalities as far as the law is concerned. Both penal law and traffic code are strictly federal.

More importantly though, plain traffic offenses don't even get to court to begin with. You get the ticket directly by the cop, and repercussions like license revocation are handled by administration. Courts only get involved if you challenge the cop's on-site decision, or once things become a good deal more serious: reckless endangerment or injuries, e.g.

Exactly. There's no more dangerous animal than a man believing he's got nothing left to lose.

I don't see a move in that direction happening anytime soon. Standing outside the U.S. of A. and looking in, it's kinda hard to imagine how those laws could ever become anything but harsher. Those voters just fall too easily for that same old law-and-order spiel.

The system over here aims to deter habitual offenders where it actually does hurt them: if they won't drive sensibly, they won't drive at all. First for a month, then for half year, eventually forever.

OTOH there are some people who just won't learn any other way than the really hard way. It's all you can hope that the death it takes to finally bring those folks to their senses will be their own.

Here (US and my neighborhood, specifically), there are three or four (at least) levels of enforcement agencies.

In town, the "city police" are the recognized enforcement agency. Violations (traffic laws, etc.) are handled in "City Court".

If I step outside of the city boundaries (less than a mile from here), then I fall under the jurisdiction of the County and it's Sheriffs. Violations get handled in County Court.

The State Police also have (overlapping?) jurisdiction as well as sole jurisdiction in some places.

And, of course, the Feds have jurisdiction (airports as well as "application specific" agencies like ATF, TSA, ICC, etc.).

Amusingly, all of the courthouses are within a block or two of each other :-/

Correct. The "citation" the officer writes has instructions which allow you to:

- pay the fine by mailing a check to...

- appear in _____ Court on ______ date to answer the charges

Most folks figure its cheaper to pay the fine than lose half a day waiting for a Judge to (possibly) throw out the ticket. So, the gummit doesn't have to deal with many contests.

Locally, there has been a big push to "photo traffic enforcement". Cameras to catch speeding violations, red light violations, etc. The fines for these tend to be pretty steep (several hundreds of dollars -- because the company who installed the camera gets a "cut" of the fines! :> ). So, more people seem to be taking up the challenge to fight these (you are questioning the testimony of a machine -- that is often poorly implemented)

Or, a "disproportionate" loss exposure. An acquaintance is currently in jail because he fled from police (high speed chase) rather than risk his *second* DUI conviction. ("Um, weren't you concerned about the welfare of other people on the road that night as you fled the police?")

There has been a fair bit of noise, here, about "illegal immigration" (I am ~1 hour drive from US-Mexico border). And, legislation enacted to *act* on the immigration issue (there is a debate as to whether this is a federal issue *outside* the States' jurisdiction or not). Essentially, trying to push "undocumented" people out of the country (or, at the very least, *this* state!).

One such law allowed police officers to verify the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic stop, etc. ("Your papers, please").

Of course, this will make folks in that situation less likely to want *any* contact with the police. A potential consequence of this might be the reluctance of such a person to stop and render aid (as required by law) in a traffic accident... or, perhaps if he/she comes across a robbery victim, someone suffering a heart attack, etc. ("I don't want to get involved. They'll deport me!")

Sadly, that doesn't work.

I have (yet another) acquaintance here who doesn't have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of! He can't afford the *mandatory* auto insurance. Yet, feels he *needs* (and DESERVES!) to be able to drive. Why should he be *inconvenienced* with public transportation just because he has no money? (he also has no *desire* to work!)

So, *if* he gets in an accident, the (other) injured party has to call upon their *own* insurance ("uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage") to cover their losses. If you try to go after this person individually, he's got *nothing* so he's got nothing to

*lose*! He's already had his license *plate* taken from him. Car impounded. Etc. But, nothing prevents him from getting behind the wheel of another car...

Another acquaintance with VERY deep pockets had a serious drinking problem. Lost his license several times. Didn't bother him... just kept right on driving. If he got caught, he figured his "connections" would bail him out. Or, a small bite out of his wallet.

Exactly. Unfortunately, it will most probably be someone *else* who pays that ultimate price. People seem to have infinite capability for rationalizing their behavior...

In the US, states are the smallest unit of jurisdiction for general law enforcement from a legal perspective. IOW, your town cops are State of XY law enforcement officers, who are empowered to make an arrest in any corner of the state. They just happen to work for your local town's police department.

They often/usually don't operate outside of their local "jurisdiction" because the political/administrative "jurisdictions" are such the law enforcement generally stays out each other's areas, more as courtesy and to avoid fights over who gets to make arrests, collect on traffic tickets, etc.

And those jurisdictions are somewhat fluid. A while ago the city of Chicago had jurisdiction over the highways within the city boundaries, even though the state cops had jurisdictions over the highways in the rest of the state. This was by an agreement done decades earlier between the state and the city. For several reasons the city decided to toss that "jurisdiction" back to the state a couple of decades ago, and other than some administrative mucking about, the only change was the paint job on the cars patrolling the roads - and, of course, which courthouse you have to go to in order to deal with a ticket.

And most courts cover certain combinations of agency and geography, but again, that's somewhat fluid, and most courts authorized by the state could theoretically hear cases from anywhere in the state. Cases where excessive notoriety has attached itself are often moved to different venues, for example.

Consider that your local town almost certainly does not have a law on the book against murder (invariably that's a state law), yet your local cops will certainly arrest you for killing someone, either in your town, or the next one over (if circumstances prevent the next town's cops from doing it). And for a serious felony, you'll likely end up in a county court (or some larger "district" in some states), since the "smaller" courts (and their associated prosecutions) are generally ill equipped to deal with those cases. So you'll have a county court hearing a case about the violation of a state law for which the arrest was made by a town cop. I sat on a jury for just such a case a few months ago - a murder (state law) in Chicago was tried in the Cook County court, the arrests were made by Chicago police officers, and at least this juror came from a town well outside Chicago (although still within Cook County).

Now there are local ordinances which don't propagate up to the state, but they're limited in scope, and some of those are not things cops from another jurisdiction are going to enforce (although in at least some cases, they may be legally authorized to do so).

OTOH, inter-state is different. The Illinois cop (state or local), absent some prior agreement, becomes a civilian when he crosses the border into Wisconsin.