Talk:Crossing guard

Crossing guards writing tickets

I want to discuss the idea that crossing guards can write speeding tickets. It is highly unusual for someone who is not a licensed peace officer to write a moving violation ticket to a motorist. Furthermore, I don't see how a crossing guard can clock the speed of a driver, flag him down, and write a ticket, all while continuing to stop traffic so that children can cross the street.

It could be possible that a police officer serving as a crossing guard could write a ticket, but it would be extraordinary for a civilian to write a moving violation ticket for any reason whatsoever.

Here is the original statement:

The position is always held by an adult, and not a student, due to some powers given to crossing guards such as writing tickets to those drivers who do not obey posted speed limits around school zones (typically 25 miles an hour or less).

I know for a fact that crossing guards in Texas who are not peace officers have no ticketing authority. Furthermore, in a few Google searches, I could only find once instance of crossing guards being able to write tickets, and that ticketing authority only extends to pedestrians, not to motorists.[1].

Let's hash this out here before moving this statement back to the main page.

Novasource 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my high school, a driver who blatantly blew through the cross walk could be waived down by the Crossing Guard and given a ticket. The Crossing Guards were not policeman, but rather part time school employyes. The tickets weren't issued for speeding, but rather failing to obey the instructions of the guard. The same is the case with drivers who blow past school buses with the stop arm out in that the bus driver can write down the license plate and issue a citation. I thinbk they way it is done in both cases is that the initial writeup is forwarded to the police who tehn mail the ticket. -Husnock 15:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your argument has multiple problems:

This youthful memory does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard, especially when used as a basis for a contraversial fact.
You have no direct experience with the process of issuing these tickets, so without citations, this is original research, which is also banned on Wikipedia.
In your examples, the crossing guard or the bus driver are merely requesting the police issue a ticket based on their observations. That is drastically different than what the article states, which is that the crossing guard and bus drivers write the citations.
The statement you are reverting says they can "[write] tickets to those drivers who do not obey posted speed limits", but in your own statement above you say "The tickets weren't issued for speeding..." You can't have it both ways. Which way is it?
Anyone can request police issue a ticket. This is not a notable fact and does not merit mention in the article.

Please note that the Wikipedia resolving disputes policy, which you say you find "useful" on your User page, says near the top "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." Could you explain why your first action was to violate this policy and revert my change? Would you care to follow this "useful" policy and revert your reversion?

Furthermore, the guideline on resolving a factual dispute, which is in play here, states "Disputed edits can be ... removed and placed on the talk page for discussion..." Please allow me to follow this guideline and revert your policy violation.

This "fact" needs a citation before it is put back on the site.

Thanks,

Novasource 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the entire section in response to concerns of its validity. As far as "reverting the reversion of the revert" :-), it appeared that the user above added in the request for a citiation, then changed thier mind and simply blanked the entire section. Blanking a section that one does not agree with is not the way to go unless it is obviously false which I do not believe is the case here. Such changes should be discussed on the talk page which is what we did here.

The primary source of this information is the regulations of Fairfax County Public Schools concerning the powers of crossing guards. A member of my family was a Principal in the school system. There are similar laws in Missouri, where I live but the most power is given to the bus drivers.

I trust these changes will be satisfactory. -Husnock 18:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I emailed Fred Ellis, the Director of the Office and Safety and Security of the Department of Facilities and Transportation Services of Fairfax County Public Schools.[2] Here is his response (printed here with his permission):

...a civilian, school crossing guard is precluded from enforcing any law. They are granted the authority to control traffic and facilitate the safe travel of pedestrians, but do not have any arrest authority whatsoever. Arrest powers are determined by state law and are associated w/a "sworn" law enforcement status. Having said that, on occasion, police officers do perform crossing guard duties, and as such, are capable of issuing summonses/making arrests while doing so.

I invite you to contact him to verify that these are truly his words.

I still maintain that the parts about crossing guards writing tickets or "citing" are badly misinformed, and an authority on the subject has given verifiable information validating this.

Will you now consent to the removal of any implication that civilian crossing guards can write tickets?

Novasource 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that they can't arrest people. Also, they cant write actual tickets but can forward the driver info to the police department. I actually attempting to rewrite to make that clear. Also, we're not only talking about FCPS. Out here in Missouri, the crossing guards can actually stop cars but I would have to hunt to find a source. They are not police, but they so have some authority to at least forward offenses to the polcie for action. Also, interesting e-mail. I dont doubt its true but some FCPS schools have only police and no crossing guards. I wonder if they got rid of the guards for the limitations on power to which you are referring. -Husnock 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, man, let's cut to the chase. Civilian crossing guards MAY stop vehicles to assist pedestrians in safely crossing streets. Civilian crossing guards MAY NOT write tickets, they MAY NOT "cite" people, they MAY NOT detain people or stop them for any other purpose. They MAY do what any other citizen can do (hence, not noteworthy enough to be in this article): request a police authority to issue a citation/ticket to the responsible party.

Do we at least agree on this?

Novasource 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "man", I believe the article now states that. I think the current revision with the picture is pretty good. I thought the sources had been accidentily blanked, but now I see the reason why...man :-) -Husnock 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't "sources"

I removed the following because they are not sources:

Fairfax County Public Schools (Manual regarding employment of Crossing Guards)
Florissant Police Department (City ordinance regarding school crossings and school bus safety)

The first "source" is just a link to a description of FCPS. Please provide a link directly to this purported manual. Otherwise, this is not a source. Same for the city ordinance. Please provide a link directly to the ordinance, not to a description of the town (which is misnamed as a description of a police department).

Novasource 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have an article on those two publications, but I suppose I could could at least get the info about the town ordinance and cite it. The Crossing Guard manual form VA Ive only heard about; that one probably is questionable. -Husnock

Who can be a crossing guard?

I offer this in support of one of my earlier edits in which I removed incorrect information stating that only adults can be crossing guards: School Crossing Guards (Brampton, Ontario). In a nutshell, this municpality allows anyone aged 16 or older to be a crossing guard, not just legal adults. --BRossow 04:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What authority does a crossing guard have?

In Texas, apparently not much: TRANSPORTATION CODE CHAPTER 600 states that "A school crossing guard trained under this section [...] is not a peace officer" and therefore we can conclude that the Texas crossing guard has no ticketing authority.

This article from the Chicago Sun-Times specifically reports that crossing guards do not have ticketing powers.

This PDF file from the Florida House of Representatives states that crossing guards can issue verbal warnings but issuing citations is limited to law enforcement.

I am currently awaiting email responses from several states' departments of public safety regarding this question, but the answer seems to be obvious.

I'm not trying to stir further debate or rub salt in wounds but rather explain previous edits with examples of supporting documentation. --BRossow 04:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current version. It spells it out very well. -Husnock 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Genie Clemens of the Iowa Department of Public Safety said this in an email this afternoon: "The crossing guard can not issue a traffic citation. Crossing guards do not have police powers." --BRossow 04:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Minnesota State Patrol:

Greetings;

I was asked to reply to your question about civilian crossing guards.

No, they cannot directly issue citations. But they can contact their city or county attorney's office and press charges that way. They have no powers of arrest.

Thanks,

Sgt. Ray Bye

MN State Patrol

--BRossow 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I am wondering why this article was moved from "Crossing Guard" to the new name of "school crossing patroller". When searching the internet, "school crossing patroller" gives about 1620 hits, most of them associated with the United Kingdom. "Crossing Guard" gives 4,270,000 with world wide usage. Clearly, crossing guard is what this article should be called. I will change it back shortly pendng no further comments from anyone else. -Husnock 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lollipop Official?

Tonight on ITV's North East News they used the gender-neutral term "Lollipop Official", has anyone heard this before? Or is it something ITV have made up instead of simply using the official UK term (School crossing patrol officer)? I did add this to the article but I changed my mind as this only time I've ever heard it so I doubt it's a common term. If anyone wants to add it in here is the citation I was going to use (the title is a bit odd but I didn't know what else to put:

{{cite news
 | title = Untitled Televised News Report 	 
 | work = [[ITV News]] – North East News 	 
 | publisher = [[ITN]] 	 
 | date = [[February 8]], [[2007]] 	 
}}

Personally I think the term is a little odd. Why not just Lollipop person? --GracieLizzie 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think lolly pop person is far a more appropriate term as the person is hardly an official for a lollypop~5349U11~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5349U11 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lollipop scandal?

The paragraph about the 'Lollipop scandal' has zero sources, and a quick Google does not yield anything usable. Is this real, or just some strange joke? SeverityOne (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these logos actually identical?

I came across this article when adding a disambiguation link to this page at Lollipop (disambiguation)

I think the following signs are actually identical.

Most road signs in the UK (and all new ones) are now required to be reflective. Although for both signs as an .svg file have different backgrounds (one yellow, one slightly green). In reality there aren't different background colours. However the reflective pattern on the sign mean that the yellow background can appear slightly green when viewed from a certain angle. The Department for Transport only list one background colour in this document [3] (page 19).

and

I'm suggesting removing the second image in both cases. Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With no oppositon (or comments) I've decided to remove the later in each case. Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

I have never heard the terms "school road patrol and guard" used in New Zealand.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under present law in Kansas, if a vehicle passes a school bus with its red 8-ways flashing and its stop sign extended out, the driver can fill out a report which can be turned in to law enforcement. The purpose of proposed bill HB 2470 is to enable better enforcement of the Kansas Bus Stop sign law (K.S.A. 8-1730 and its attachments.) Summary of Proposed Bill: This proposed bill has several parts. First, school districts have the option to enter into a cooperative agreement with a bus camera company to install a bus stop sign camera system on the buses of the districts’ choice. There are three companies that offer these systems. Normally they do not charge for the systems up front, or for the installation and maintenance of the systems. This agreement is done at the same time that the second part below is done. Second, school districts can enter into a cooperative agreement with law enforcement agencies for the disposition of the fines collected. Typically, part of the fine goes to the court and law enforcement, part of the fine goes to the camera company and part goes to the school district. Each part is designed to help cover the costs of operating these camera systems, as well as the court and enforcement costs. This proposal would be 100% paid for by bus stop sign violators. Third, the camera system is designed to come on when the stop sign is triggered to extend. The 8-way red lights come on at the same time. The camera turns off when the stop sign is fully retracted and the red lights go off. Fourth, the camera system is self contained and separate from any other cameras that may be on the bus. It has its own DVR, SD card and a pair of high resolution IP cameras. It is dependent only on an operational bus stop sign system and that electric power runs directly to the bus stop sign camera. The images can be stop-framed for identification purposes. Fifth, the recorded violation is then forwarded to law enforcement by a school district transportation official who reviews it to make sure that a violation has actually occurred. If a violation has occurred, law enforcement then delivers or mails a ticket for this misdemeanor violation to the owner of the vehicle at the last known address. The owner is determined by the license plate information taken from the video. Sixth, the proposed bill does contain some exceptions. 1. Videos recorded by this system are exempt from the open records act to protect privacy. 2. If the owner was not driving the car at the time, the owner has the option to present proof of who was actually driving so that the ticket can be redirected to the actual offender. 3. Tickets cannot be issued to car rental agency vehicles or dealership loaner vehicles. Last of all, this bill incorporates these violations within the existing Kansas traffic violation law. The already existing initial fine and court cost are not changed, nor are any changes made in the already existing methods that a violator has to respond to a traffic ticket. These same options are available with this issued ticket.

http://cms.allegancounty.org/sheriff/Admin/Resources/School%20Bus%20Violation%20Form%20for%20Bus%20Drivers.pdf

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/article/OP/20090405/NEWS/304059975 The Oakland Press NEWS

Bus drivers team up with police to ticket motorists By KAREN WORKMAN POSTED: 04/05/09, 12:01 AM EDT | UPDATED: ON 04/05/2009 The mailbox has long been the bearer of bad news -- usually delivering the expected and seemingly endless stack of bills to pay.

But imagine opening it to find a rather unexpected piece of bad news.

One day, there's an envelope from the local police department and inside of it is a traffic ticket that threatens to put three points on your license and cost you money in fines.

It can and does happen, and it's perfectly legal. "We've been doing this for many years -- it's for the safety of the children," said Lt. Stephen Jacobs of the Oakland County Sheriff's substation in Rochester Hills.

In Rochester Hills, the sheriff's substation works with local bus drivers to curb violations of school bus signals.

Tickets in the mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C500:37D0:A018:D9AD:A872:FCBA (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]