Should traffic stops be abandoned ?


PDA






S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 06:18 AM
What do think ? Does traffic stops cause more harm then good ?

Pros

1.For most honest citizens who dislike cops,thier only bad expereince comes through traffic stops dealing with an officer with an unpleasent attitude

2.It might be the most dangerous part of a police officers job.A high percentage of police injurys and deaths result from traffic stops, from accidents to criminals shooting them

3.It takes officers away from doing more important police work such as patroling high crime areas etc

4.It puts citizens at risk.alot of citizens have been hurt or killed on side the road while waiting to get a triffic ticket,thier only crime going 10 miles over the speed limit

5.With more and more citys using red light and hidden speeding cameras,there is less need to tie up police officers from doing this.

6.with rader dectectors and the ability to pay a lawyer 50.00 to a 100.00 bucks to take care of a ticket,is it worth it economically ?

Of course there are cons to not having them,but i was just watching cnn and they were doing a story on the CA highway patrol who recently loss alot of officers from triffic stops(six officers in 5 months),and when i hear of poilce shortages and rising crime rates and see 10 cops during the day sitting on side the road giveing out tickets .......i just think, is it worth it ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Should traffic stops be abandoned ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nhhillbilly
March 5, 2006, 06:26 AM
How else do you get drunk driver's off the streets unless they crash and kill some one?

S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 06:29 AM
i would say have a dwi unit patrol at night

i dont think they should stop completly,but haveing 10 cops in a close area just setting speed traps for 10 hrs a day ist worth it imo

gunsmith
March 5, 2006, 06:36 AM
most speed limits are dumb, as well as seat belt laws.
imho dui laws are rubbish as well.
if some one cant drive then pull them over but if a driver is over .08
but stopping at stop signs and using turn signals etc
then they should mind their own biz

Geno
March 5, 2006, 06:37 AM
There have been DWI Ignition for autos for some time now. Maybe they should (somehow) be available for ALL vehicles. How could they be integrated to work as quickly as a simple key? Furthermore, DWI should be a MAJOR crime, same as carrying a loaded gun and killing someone accidentally with it. Kill someone with that weapon, go to prison for a VEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY long time.

Doc2005

S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 06:44 AM
gunsmith,

cameras ,cameras,cameras

the the red light camera has stopped me from running yellow lights more then anything

if they were at stops signs i would come to a complete stop there as well

seatbelts should be a personal chioce,except for kids imo

and theres no need for the sarcasm,its just a dissusion on the pros and the cons


dec 2005,completely agree

Biker
March 5, 2006, 07:02 AM
Doc
There are many potential problems with the DWI ignition switch idea. For example; You're out fishing with your young son and he's bitten by a cottonmouth. While fishing, you've had 3 beers.
Car won't start - son dies.
Just one of many possibilities.
Biker

ulflyer
March 5, 2006, 07:19 AM
The Industry meaning perpetuating Government. If you live in a small town, go down to the courthouse, watch the cases being brought up. Look at who are in jail and their economic status. Cases can go on for months, years even with discontinuances, etc. Keeps Judges, DA's, clerks, jailers, bondsmen, cops in business. More business, more money, keeps the "Industry" going. Cynic, you bet your life. :mad:

LiquidTension
March 5, 2006, 07:37 AM
Traffic stops are really a department-specific issue. An understaffed department won't do as many traffic stops as a fully staffed one. For example, SCHP is understaffed, so for the most part they don't pull people over unless they're speeding excessively. My department does very few traffic stops, maybe 2 per shift, because checking property and actively patrolling problem areas is more important*. Richland County SD officers don't usually pull people over for minor violations, especially if they aren't in the Traffic division.

Small departments in low crime areas are a little different. This is where you run into speed traps and people getting pulled for having their blinker only flash 3 times instead of 4 before they turn. These departments and the towns they serve often have very low budgets, and writing tickets is a form of revenue. South Congaree is an example of this type of place. They made front page news last year for DOUBLING the city's revenue by writing tickets for minor violations (37 in a 35). They even wrote tickets where no law was broken when they thought they could get away with it ("Illegal tinting" when the tinting met state requirements, etc). It got to the point where many people would drive 20 miles out of the way just to avoid going through that particular area.

Of the stops that we make for traffic violations, we let off about 90% of people with a verbal warning. If an officer writes a ticket, he must then go to court. If court is on a day where the officer is working, the shift is short an officer - we like to avoid that.

The point of all this is that traffic stops are not the problem - they definitely serve a purpose, especially on major drug routes like I-95. When departments view traffic stops as a way to make money, THAT is where the problem arises.



* The exception to this is on weekend nights when we pull over a lot of vehicles on the corridor from the bar area to discourage DUI. Still, most of these people get off with a warning - we just like to make our presence felt in the hopes that people will be concerned about getting caught since concerns about driving drunk have obviously slipped their minds.

jd25q
March 5, 2006, 07:59 AM
Here's another perspective.

Compare my agency to one of a similar size closeby. Both serve a population of 30-40,000. In one particular year we had 4 traffic related fatalities, they had 23. We have more miles of major highway than them. This was not an anomaly, but the statistics were similar for other years. Guess which one focused on traffic enforcement? The chief said that his men had more important duties than radar. I don't know what, nothing else (that LE could deal with anyway) was killing 23 of his citizens in a year.

Fly320s
March 5, 2006, 08:19 AM
S&W 910: Does traffic stops cause more harm then good?

In my opinion, no.

Why do we have traffic laws?

I think that we have traffic laws to protect people. Who are we protecting, the speeder or everyone else? I say that we are protecting everyone else, and that we don't really care about the speeder.

The traffic laws are there to create order; to create a predictable traffic flow. That order and predictablitiy leads to safer conditions to drive in, which leads to fewer accidents. The speeder gets pulled over and ticketed to discourage the behavior that leads to chaos and decreased safety margins. Sometimes, the traffic fines are used to generate revenue for the local police department, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

Now, with all that disclaimer in place, I think that in a perfect, free libertarian-type society we wouldn't need the traffic laws. Or at least we wouldn't need to enforce them, as each person would be 100% responsible and accountable for his own actions.

As much as I dislike a large, intrusive government I dislike chaos more. And since we can't get people to be responsible and accountable, we have to have some rules to persuade people to straighten up and drive right.

One more thing: If there is only one car on a road (or at least no other cars close enough to be affected), then traffic laws should not apply to that car and driver since there is no one else to be protected, public property not withstanding.

chopinbloc
March 5, 2006, 09:30 AM
well said.

why is it that most departments focus more time and energy on traffic enforcement than on deterring violent crime? same reasons they spend more on drug enforcement. both provide the agency or government entity to which they are responsible a substantial form of revenue. both APPEAR to the public to be menaces that must be controlled. both allow intrusion into what should be private life. the fact is that traffic laws, drug laws, gun laws, noise ordnances, etc. serve one purpose: to control. some like this control. some folks feel it's necessary to promote order. i don't. or rather i don't value order more highly than my own liberty. i propose this: do what you want but if you hurt someone, be prepared to suffer as badly as them; if you damage or steal property, be prepared to pay for it.

it seems impossible, though for man to form and keep a minimalist government. we seem unable to resist the urge to tinker with a perfectly good system.

geekWithA.45
March 5, 2006, 10:07 AM
I object to traffic stops as a revenue measure.

I know, it's difficult to define when that line has been crossed, but my general rule of thumb is that if you cannot detect any difference in behavior between the person selected to be pulled over and the other guys in the vincinity, the person is question is not driving dangerously, and the traffic is otherwise flowing along in an orderly fashion, pulling the person over does not serve the interest of public safety.

R.H. Lee
March 5, 2006, 10:18 AM
The single biggest responsibility most people have is the way they drive their automobiles. The simple fact that we still have, what, 50,000+ fatalities a year on the roads means there is not enough enforcement IMO. Penalties should me more, not less, severe. Especially for drunk driving.

Crosshair
March 5, 2006, 10:26 AM
I dislike many Minnesota cops because they are glorified tax collectors. The fine for 10 over the limit is $119 and the speed limits are all too low. North Dakota cops are nice. They leave you alone unless you are doing something VERY stupid.

m14rick
March 5, 2006, 10:32 AM
As an ex peace officer, I can agree that alot of revenue is produced by traffic enforcement. That being said, I obey speed limits, traffic signals, keep all my lights working, and nothing louder than a Flowmaster series 70 muffler on my vehicles, and I am not bothered by the enforcement agents of the various county and municipal and state police.

MrTwigg
March 5, 2006, 10:48 AM
1.For most honest citizens who dislike cops,thier only bad expereince comes through traffic stops dealing with an officer with an unpleasent attitude

I doubt if “most honest citizens” have a disliking towards law enforcement. If a person has a “Bad Experience” with a LEO it most likely a direct result of their own unplesant attitude. The LEO who just stopped you might have had a gun pulled on him earlier this tends to make most folks a bit jumpy.

2.It might be the most dangerous part of a police officers job.A high percentage of police injurys and deaths result from traffic stops, from accidents to criminals shooting them

Yes, this is arguably the single most dangerous thing a LEO can do during his (or her) shift. Are you suggesting; in order to prevent injuries to LEO’s we have them NOT do their job ? I know several LEO’s and every one of them understands the dangers inherent with the job.

3. It takes officers away from doing more important police work such as patroling high crime areas etc

So if a LEO spots someone driving erratically, they should not stop them. What if the driver had just robbed a store or raped and killed your mother ? Oops, he can’t stop the driver... “Not Important” !

4.It puts citizens at risk.alot of citizens have been hurt or killed on side the road while waiting to get a triffic ticket,thier only crime going 10 miles over the speed limit

Please post your research source to back this up. 10 MPH over the limit can mean the difference between a controlled stop and a rollover. I live in a rural town on the main road, posted limit is 30 MPH. In the past three years I have lived here I have witnessed five accidents on the straight road in front of my home. Two were rollovers, in one a pickup truck ended in my yard less than six inches from my front door, in the other a car rolled over after striking a tree and slid upside down into my driveway. The two were rear ended and one was head on in an attempt to pass over the double yellow line. All were at 10 MPH over the limit according to local P. D.

With more and more citys using red light and hidden speeding cameras,there is less need to tie up police officers from doing this.

This records the vehicle, not the driver and fails to take into account reasons discussed in question #3.

6.with rader dectectors and the ability to pay a lawyer 50.00 to a 100.00 bucks to take care of a ticket,is it worth it economically ?

A radar detector is not a license to speed, it is a tool to notify you of possible radar surveillance in the area, when it goes off slow down. I have one and use it.
$50.00 to $100.00 to “A lawyer” will not “Take care of” your ticket. You are personally responsible. The total cost of your violation needs to be considered; there is the cost of “A lawyer”, the fine, increased insurance premiums for several years, court costs, and lost wages. That’s unless your speeding caused an accident, then there’s more.

Of course there are cons to not having them,but i was just watching cnn and they were doing a story on the CA highway patrol who recently loss alot of officers from triffic stops(six officers in 5 months),and when i hear of poilce shortages and rising crime rates and see 10 cops during the day sitting on side the road giveing out tickets .......i just think, is it worth it ?

For myself, the answer is; Yes, it is worth it. It's about quality of life. There are departments which do focus on generating revenue and we live in a capitalist country.


As much as I dislike a large, intrusive government I dislike chaos more. And since we can't get people to be responsible and accountable, we have to have some rules to persuade people to straighten up and drive right.

+1 !

Pilgrim
March 5, 2006, 11:01 AM
As an ex peace officer, I can agree that alot of revenue is produced by traffic enforcement. That being said, I obey speed limits, traffic signals, keep all my lights working, and nothing louder than a Flowmaster series 70 muffler on my vehicles, and I am not bothered by the enforcement agents of the various county and municipal and state police.

I agree.

Lupinus
March 5, 2006, 11:07 AM
I think they are usless personally. If I am traveling down the road doing sixty and my vehicle is under control and I'm not driving to fast for conditions (raining, high traffic that means Im getting on bumpers or switching lanes constantly) I don't see the reason for bothering me, the one exception to this being a residental area cause kids sometimes have a bad habbit of not knowing better then to run out into the road, if you see a ball roll into the road might as well hit your breaks now cause theres a good chance a kid is gonna be following shortly. But a highway and a road in the middle of no where see no need for speed limits and rather then speed traps they should be looking for reckless driving and such. Look at Germany, their highways have fewer deaths then ours (and the numbers were done to account for the lower numbers of people and miles of highway, can't quote them right off the top of my head though) and they manage without speed limits on much of their highway, in fact going to slow or riding the left lane so you hold up traffic will get you into more trouble then speeding by a cop at 150 so long as you have control of your vehicle. Some traffic laws are fine, but most are idiocy and money makers IMO. And also IMO it would be better served to have fewer cops handleing traffic and the ones that are patroling rather then in speed traps.

Hawkmoon
March 5, 2006, 12:06 PM
To be honest, I wish there were more traffic stops. But I would like to see "speed traps" discontinued, and the traffic officers instructed to apprehend the nuts who drive much faster than the flow of traffic, tailgate, weave in and out of traffic, and generally drive like they don't care if they survive until tomorrow.

Don't even get me started about traffic cameras. I think they are unconstitutional and should not be allowed.

Curare
March 5, 2006, 12:45 PM
No.

Hkmp5sd
March 5, 2006, 01:09 PM
If you look at the ratio of generic traffic stops vs. those that something bad happens, the vast majority of stops result in nothing but a traffic ticket issued. Most people don't run from the cops, shoot/fight the LEO or wind up getting ran over by some rubber-necker.

Thanks to Cops, Wildest Police Chases, World's Most Amazing Videos, etc., many people have the wrong impression that traffic stops almost always result in some sort of trouble. It ain't true.

U.S.SFC_RET
March 5, 2006, 01:23 PM
As quoted from Biker,post#7.
Doc
There are many potential problems with the DWI ignition switch idea. For example; You're out fishing with your young son and he's bitten by a cottonmouth. While fishing, you've had 3 beers.
Car won't start - son dies.
Cottonmouth snakes won't bite you unless you pick it up. For example tell your son not to pick up cottonmouth snakes. Cottonmouth snakes get a bad wrap because they look fierce when the open their mouth showing a white mouth in a defensive position. There was a study conducted at the university of Georgia proving that the Cottonmouth is primarily a defensive snake.
I agree that there are many examples of when you must drive under an emergency but if you are one of those people who have to use an interlock ignition system because of a DUI, just don't drink at all. That way you can be prepared for that emergency.

Manedwolf
March 5, 2006, 01:27 PM
They'll never stop. Why? Revenue.

I know a lot of places where a major road crosses through a small town. Even with no structures around, the speed limit suddenly drops from, say, 55 to 40 right after a blind curve. There's a cruiser there every day with someone pulled over.

It's a money machine for the town, pure and simple.

Manedwolf
March 5, 2006, 01:29 PM
gunsmith,

cameras ,cameras,cameras

the the red light camera has stopped me from running yellow lights more then anything

The cameras are made by the lowest bidders. They can go off and capture the wrong person, firing too soon or too late, or firing when a person is going through a yellow, or even have a bug and do it when it's fully green.

Thankfully, in some states, you can still get it thrown out of court by asking for the witnessing officer to be present. Since there wasn't one, it gets thrown out. But it's still a hassle.

akodo
March 5, 2006, 01:31 PM
I would bet that traffic accidents account for more death than criminals using guns, knives, fists, clubs, whatever. So maybe 10 officers setting up speedtraps IS better than having those officers off tracking down guys buying a few joints, guys who stole a bike that wasn't chained up, or the dozens of other calls that are the norm when you take out all the traffic offences from an officer's day.

S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 01:46 PM
who here pays the full fine for tickets ?

when i and everyone i know gets a ticket my lawyer gets it thrown out every time and charges me between 50.00 and 100.00 bucks and it does not go on your driving record.

you might want to call a lawyer who advertises traffic violations next time you get a ticket

BulletFan
March 5, 2006, 02:00 PM
I'm not judging anyone here or trying to imply that anyone is wrong, but I find it very interesting that so many people that have no problem obeying he laws set out for carrying a weapon, but put up such a fight when it comes to simple traffic rules. You don't have a problem leaving the gun in the car when you go in to a bar, a school or somewhere else where it's not permitted, but when it comes to the speed limit...who cares?
Why is it that as law abiding citizens we are selective about which laws we obey and which we don't.
Speed limits are in place to protect the many. Not single out the few. DUI/DWI laws and limitations are in place to protect the many, not the few. Yea, I think it's true that as a whole we're suppose to not care about the few who decide to drink and drive, but you know what, I care more about the people NOT drinking that could possibly get killed or injured by said driver.
When you drink and you drive, you are irresponsible, any way you slice it. If you drink and drive and get pulled over by a cop doing his or her job, it's YOUR fault, not the cops.

Matt

jd25q
March 5, 2006, 02:03 PM
Every police officer hears it sooner or later, and I heard it here so I thought I'd address it.

"Why aren't you out there doing something about the real criminals?"

1. If the police are to be a deterrent they have to be visible. No where are we more visible than on the side of the road, lights flashing with a car pulled over. I know of at least two occasions where real criminals have stated in interrogations in neighboring jurisdictions that they chose not to come to ours because they saw a lot of cars getting stopped.

2. We receive more complaints about speeding than anything else; from the public we serve.

3. People are more likely to be killed, maimed, etc., by someone else's car, than by their gun, knife, fists, etc.

4. We often catch real criminals in traffic stops. Sometimes people that have been on the run for years.

If you don't want the police enforcing traffic laws then petition your legislature to remove them from the books.

Parker Dean
March 5, 2006, 02:11 PM
I almost believe the "it's for public safety" line, until i think about where the money goes.

Be interesting to see just how keen the State is about enforcing traffic laws if the money collected went somewhere else, like private charities or a lottery of some sort.

LawDog
March 5, 2006, 02:30 PM
Around here, Community Service for Class 'C' fines goes (I think) eight hours per each hundred dollars of the fine. Sitting or "laying out" a fine is a hundred dollars per 24 hours in jail.

Laying out a fine costs the County in meals and basic jail kit issued to each incoming inmate. Community Service costs the county less, but each officer supervising those doing Community Service has to be paid, and could be doing something else.

Personally, I think that Class 'C' fines should be dealt with by public flogging, one lash per fifty or hundred dollars. Community Service should be restricted to those whom cannot be flogged for medical reasons.

Flogging is an actual deterrent, where as paying a fine doesn't change the behavior of a significant portion of the people I see receiving Class 'C' tickets.

Flogging would remove the temptation of revenue generation.

Just my $0.02 worth.

LawDog

Legionnaire
March 5, 2006, 02:51 PM
+1 for flogging, at least in general (not sure about its application to traffic violations). In this day and age, where people "take offense" at the slightest provocation and are all worried about "self esteem" and the like, I'll bet public humiliation, that hurt no less, would be a serious deterrent. Given the centuries old history of public corporal punishment, it's hard to argue it would be cruel or unusual.

Taurus 66
March 5, 2006, 02:52 PM
The auto industries should just make cars with sophisticated onboard computers that test you before you are allowed to start the engine:

Car: "Eye Chart. Please read bottom line and and speak into the microphone."
You: "F-P-T-O-Z-L-P-E"

Car: "What is your destination? Please type in."
You: "Southtown Plaza, Henrietta, NY"

Car: "Please exhale into the breathalyzer."
You blow into the tube and test negative for alcohol
Car: "You are so-ber"

Car: "Will you be breaking any of the state's 2,338 traffic laws? Please type in."
You: "No"

Car: "Invalid. Will you be breaking any of the state's 2,338 traffic laws? Please type in."
You: "Yes"

Car: "Congratulations! You may now start your engine. A general traffic infraction ticket has been generated and will be mailed tomorrow to your current street address. Allow 2-5 business days."

Optical Serenity
March 5, 2006, 03:18 PM
traffic stops are a small portion of traffic enforcement as a whole. There are many ways (traffic stops, cameras, sobriety check points, etc etc) that law enforcement on traffic laws can occur.

That being said...think back on last year for a minute. I know that the most dangerous times of last year, where the most harm almost came to me and my family, was on the public roadways. Yes, its true...traffic related deaths and injuries are a huge problem.

I don't do traffic stops because I particularly like the dangerous it poses to me. How many of you want to stand on the side of a busy road or highway and feel the wind off a Mack truck as it passes two feet behind you at 70mph? No one!

We do it because of all the little infants, children, preganent moms, dads, grandmas, and even animals I've scraped up off the roads. I'm tired of fatality accidents.

Everytime I get a drunk off the road, or cite someone for stop sign violation, or what have you, I feel like I'm doing a service to those who have died due to someone else's carelessness.

MrTwigg
March 5, 2006, 03:20 PM
+1 !

Honorable mention to Lawdog for flogging :what: !

Powderman
March 5, 2006, 03:23 PM
We often catch real criminals in traffic stops. Sometimes people that have been on the run for years.



And that, sportsfans, is the REAL reason for traffic stops. Not revenue.

In order to generate enough revenue to fund our Department, this means that each one of us--including our Chief--would have to write $7,000 worth of tickets EACH SHIFT.

And, since most of the citations would go to non-Native Americans (I'm a Tribal cop), we wouldn't see ANY of the money. We would be citing folks into Tacoma Municipal Court, or Pierce County. (I'm sure they would like the revenue, but that isn't the way we do business.)

And, speed traps? I don't think so. I don't need to set a speed trap--which is illegal in this State, anyway.

I sit on an open road, which is straight for at least two miles in each direction, flat and level, in broad daylight with my highbeams on. And I don't even pull someone over unless they are going at least 15 over; most of the time, a quick flash of the light bar will do wonders.

Now, ask me where I get my biggest amount of warrant arrests from?

Also, I have three words for anyone who wants us to discontinue traffic enforcement:

Timothy McVeigh. :evil:

B36
March 5, 2006, 03:27 PM
910, how can we trust scofflaws with a gun?:uhoh:

Sorry traffic laws should be enforced.

As far as the rules, IMO three moving violations in a year should net a 90 day suspension and a large fine.

Biker
March 5, 2006, 03:28 PM
I was under the impression that the originally posted idea referring to DUI locks was in reference to all vehicles regardless of DUIs and yes, I'm very familiar with snakes. That was just one example.
Biker

mordechaianiliewicz
March 5, 2006, 03:31 PM
The Industry meaning perpetuating Government. If you live in a small town, go down to the courthouse, watch the cases being brought up. Look at who are in jail and their economic status. Cases can go on for months, years even with discontinuances, etc. Keeps Judges, DA's, clerks, jailers, bondsmen, cops in business. More business, more money, keeps the "Industry" going. Cynic, you bet your life.
__________________

He said it all. Maybe you could get some DWI stops on certain nights, and that sort of thing, but overall, this is about keeping the cops busy, cities funded, and the system running. Giving alot of people excuses to collect a paycheck.

Pork Fat
March 5, 2006, 03:31 PM
I can't believe that there is a blanket "good" or "bad" concerning traffic enforcement. That there are some oddly long and tediously slow speed zones
in some towns can not be denied by an honest observer. That there is vehicular hooliganism practiced daily in need of a response is also true.
The biggest beef I have with standard speeding tickets and red light cameras is the apparent suspension of "Innocent until proven guilty".
It has been acknowledged in several major cities that stop light timing was sped up after initial revenues from camera tickets did not meet expectations.
These cameras are run by contractors, not police. The camera outfits will suggest ways to increase the take, and ever-strapped municipalities can be
easily tempted. This process can easily make some cynical, as the original safety and compliance objective is corrupted by the free money-the take shared by the contractor. In some areas, rear ending accidents increased
as paranoid motorists stopped short at the first sign of yellow.
As far as speeding is concerned, I guess George Carlin had it right years ago-
There are only two kinds of drivers, the ones that drive too slow, and the ones that drive too fast. Naturally we each feel that we provide the best yardstick. The guy that races up MY street is obviously in need of a felony stop with full cavity search, while the Left Lane Bandit holding up my reasonably swift journey needs to have his Prius rolled into a tube.
No short, certain answer seems to catch it 100%.

orangeninja
March 5, 2006, 03:38 PM
I think some discount too easily exactly how much crime is stopped because of traffic stops...For instance, gang and drug interdiction is a proven method to deter or at least increase the risk in trafficing in drugs and gang activity.

Additionally, occasionally you get "the big one" when performing a routine traffic stop. Timothy McVeigh was caught in a routine stop.

Sometimes you save a life, I recently saw a video of an officer performing a routine traffic stop where the driver was a convicted sex offender on parole who had just kidnapped a minor and had him in the car with him.

Calumus
March 5, 2006, 03:43 PM
Alright, I'm having a little problem with some of the replies on this thread. "Traffic laws are only for the safety of the general public" sounds kind of like the excuse given for most gun laws. Seeing as how when they did away with the federally mandated 55MPH law a couple of years ago rates of traffic fatalities dropped, I think the safety issue is out. 85% of the American population drives at least 5mph over the limit was what a study I read a couple of years ago said, and why shouldn't they? The interstate highway network was designed way back in the 40's and 50's with the idea that the "cars of tommorow" would be able to safely cruise along at 80mph. Well, tommorow's here and even a little prius can get stopped from 80 and perform evasive manuvers at that speed, so why haven't the speed limits gone up any more? Money, plain and simple. Here in Jersey ANY ticket you get in a 65 zone is doubled. Speeding, careless driving, turn signal doesn't work, everything. I live about 10 miles from the Penn border off rte 80, and the record here that I've seen was 11 Troopers hiding in bushes, behind over passes and in the emergency vehicle u-turns between my exit (12) and the one for Mt. Olive (25) That's 11 revenuers camped out in 13 miles. I'm not saying there should be no traffic stops, far from it. When you're moving along with traffic doing 80 on the highway and everything's going fine till you see that 1 idiot weaving in and out of traffic trying to do 95, he should get yanked, but to hand someone a several hundred dollar fine on top of hundreds of dollars in insurance surcharges for doing 10 over on an empty 8 lane highway is ludicrous. About 10 years ago I was hit head on by a state trooper, it was snowing out and he hit a patch of ice and spun out. He came across all 8 lanes of rte 80 and the median and caught me dead center as I was pulling into the exit lane to get off the highway. We were both going pretty slowly so there wasn't that much damage to either car. I followed him back to his barracks so he could fill out his report in a little bit safer enviornment. What was the 1st thing his C.O. asked when we walked through the door together? "Was there any damage to the radar unit?" The guy the trooper just hit head on is standing right behind him and this guy wanted to know if the income generator was OK.:banghead: Forgive me if I'm going on a bit of a rant here, but it just bugs me that on any given day if you're on 80 right before the Trooper's shift change you will have 5 or 6 blow past you at well over 100, or you'll see a Trooper kissing 90 and then pulling off into the median to make sure we untrained drivers don't hurt ourselves by doing 72. I don't know if anyone here reads Car & Driver but Brock Yates, the guy who set up the real cannonball run is one of their editors and had an idea I agree with whole heartedly. In Europe they have higher speed limits because their drivers have to go through more training than we do here. They should have a 2 tier liscence system. Tier 1 would be the same as it is now, you take your joke of a driver's test, pass, then have to obey all posted limits and stay in the right lanes on highways. Tier 2 would be for people who are willing to get extra training and take a more difficult test. We would get an extra 15-20mph over the posted limit on highways and get the left lanes to ourselves. This would solve most of the problems you have with traffic flow now, which in turn would reduce the accident rate even more. That's it, I'm done, again sorry about the rant but driving is my other passion and just like guns it gets screwed up by a few ignorant people doing stupid things and making the 6 o'clock news.
Cheers,
Shawn

S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 03:55 PM
Calumus,i enjoyed yur rant :)

fastbolt
March 5, 2006, 04:20 PM
We often catch real criminals in traffic stops. Sometimes people that have been on the run for years.

Ditto, and then some ...

Stopping vehicles for real traffic violations, even annoying infractions, generally results in more criminals being located and arrested. I don't have to even work hard at remembering finding stolen vehicles, folks with outstanding arrest/bench warrants for drugs & violence, etc., etc. ...

One time a buddy of mine stopped a car on a rural highway for a minor traffic violation and apprehended a seriously dangerous person wanted for kidnaping in another state. He had a cocked revolver sitting on the front seat, covered and concealed with some cloth.

I remember when I was training new people, and all we had to do to get them more self-initiated arrests each shift ... to add to their dispatched "go arrest someone at the following crime scene" arrests ... was to stop more moving vehicles.

I always gave more warnings than tickets, unless I was working a special detail because of public complaints of certain violations ... and I never had a hard time finding and arresting actual criminals behind the wheel of a car, or as a passenger. It used to really puzzle some of the 'less proactive' folks, too, especially since one of the beats where I used to find and arrest real criminals in cars was a rather affluent area ... which just happened to have a few freeway exits and entrances that made it convenient for criminals to pass through, or stop and browse, apparently considering some "easy" criminal activity with handy freeways escapes ... and violating various rules of the road in the process. ;)

Of course, if people want less traffic enforcement ... they should probably be prepared for more traffic accidents/collisions, including those involving injuries/death, and more criminals being active and mobile, feeling free to move about without worrying about getting caught while driving to & from their nefarious deeds.:cool:

rudolf
March 5, 2006, 04:35 PM
2.It might be the most dangerous part of a police officers job.A high percentage of police injurys and deaths result from traffic stops, from accidents to criminals shooting them


This means that by being at traffic stops, police can meet the most dangerous criminals. That is excactly what I want police to do.

MrTwigg
March 5, 2006, 05:02 PM
Timothy McVeigh. :evil:

'nuff said ! :D

haole_boySS
March 5, 2006, 05:06 PM
I like the redlight cameras and speed cameras. I wish that when an actual cop pulls you over, you got the choice...
"you were doing 65 in a 50. you have 2 choices...$65 fine and 2 points on your license or $150 fine and no points" "please sign on the line of your choice"

Personally, I would ALWAYS choose the steeper fine. Id rather pay the extra money right there, than allow my insurance company to get ahold of it and get me for multiple hundreds more in the following year.

I live in MD and travel on the beltway everyday. (Washington Beltway 495) Most of my travels are in the Prince Georges county side of town. During traffic times, you will ALMOST never see a PG cop with someone pulled over. You better be doing 110mph sideways.

On the other hand, good ol MSP will have speed traps set up on the beltway during rush hour. The most annoying thing about that is they are on the shoulder running radar and laser. Frequently, they will gun someone doing over the speed limit and run out into the beltway to flag them down. (Keep in mind that most all the people traveling on 495 are doing an average of 65mph) Is this safe? Is it worth the risk of getting run over, causing multiple cars to slam on the brakes, swerving, etc?
Alot of people in this topic have been preaching about how the cops are out there for traffic safety. Please explain the safety aspect of my 100% accurate example.

I will also say that to EVERY SINGLE ENTRANCE to the 495, 295, 395, 695 beltways systems in the wash met area......have signs posted telling you that pedestrian traffic is illegal on the beltway system. If you went to court to tell a judge that you clipped a MSP trooper.....what would you say exactly?
"uh your honor, the trooper in question ran across 2 open traffic lanes to flag the motorist in the lane to the right of me. The trooper was in my lane and there were cars on either side of me. where was I supposed to go? the trooper put me in that position."
Again, thats not far fetched. The MSP does it all the time.

I guess the point is that I would like to see less cops on the street. Like alot of others have said...Get the guy driving erratic, not the guy doing 65 in a 55 (as he flows with traffic).

JMHO

Andy

Manedwolf
March 5, 2006, 05:26 PM
Every time I hear people talking about in-car checks on safety, I just think of Fifth Element.

"You have just had an accident. You have one point left on your license."

gunsmith
March 5, 2006, 05:31 PM
if I gave the appearance of sarcasm I am truly sorry!:(

I am against those cameras, which are yellow light cameras really.
they are timed differently to catch people as they are run by private interest

S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 05:48 PM
gunsmith,

sorry for the misunderstading,my mistake :)

gunsmith
March 5, 2006, 05:53 PM
I am sure I would flee at high speed rather then submit to a flogging.
personally, I am a non drinker or rather an "ex drinker" all
the laws in the world didn't stop me and I was never caught driving
well over the limit because I allways obeyed every single law when I was
a drunk.
now that I'm sober and can just get a ticket like a regular citizen
I am a lot less carefull.

most speed limits are just plain dumb and only serve to increase the revenue of the state.

for instance here in NV it used to be (on certain highways)
you could go as fast as you wanted to, you're in the desert, you can see for miles and there are no other vehicles so whats the point of speed limits there?

but some crummy politician needed a few more bucks in the coffers.

and if cops are a visible detererent then why do they hide?.

most traffic laws are just a racket, as are drug laws , gun laws, prostituion laws I could go on and on but I have to go to my driving job ...:neener:

Low-Sci
March 5, 2006, 06:09 PM
This, I must admit, makes almost no sense to me.

Obeying the rules for carrying weapons makes sense, yet when we are controlling the path of a 3,000 lb machine, they don't matter? What's the principle difference between a vehicle going 75 with an idiot behind the wheel who has no regard for other people's safety and a bullet fired from a weapon by an idiot with no regard for other people's safety?

I don't care at all if you personally think you can drive safely ten or twenty over. Can everyone else around you do it too? Wanna bet your life on it?

There are lots of people on the road. Not all of them are smart. Get cut off twice and you'll realize that in a big hurry.

Why is it hard to understand that rules are in place for safety in both of these situations?

No, Im not calling gun owners idiots, I know Im the new guy, and I'll get flamed like nobody's business. I'm just boggled by the inconsistency of the situation.

Bart Skelton
March 5, 2006, 06:10 PM
A very impressive gaggle of comments on this subject. Many good points made. Regardless whether you are pro or con traffic stop, I believe they're here to stay, particularly in rural areas. As for departments using traffic stops as a revenue multiplier, I tend to agree with those who find it irritating. However, larger departments with professional officers whose job it is to patrol the highways deserve much more respect for their efforts.

My own law enforcement career began with the New Mexico State Police, and I've missed them every day since that I left them for the feds. I've performed my share of traffic stops and I have first hand knowledge that the motoring public often finds an officer, whether he is polite or not, offensive. The mere presence of a patrol officer on the highway, whether or not he is stopping cars, is a deterrence. If he's working traffic and conducting stops, even more effective. In my opinion, discontinuing traffic stops would cause the highway death rates to skyrocket.

While working the road, I never set a goal to write a particular number of citations per day. Out of the 30-40 stops I made a day, I only cited a fourth of the drivers, and that was generally after they had failed the temperament test. Our superiors frequently told us that we served the public and that we weren't there to harass anyone. Most of us took that to heart. To me, traffic stops were a good tool to look into serious crime. The highways I worked were main arteries for drugs heading north from Mexico, and drug money headed back to the traffickers in Mexico. My partners and I knocked off many, many loads of dope and money. Illegal aliens, fugitives and stolen cars were routinely encountered. If not for traffic stops, these thugs would have continued their criminal enterprise unhindered.

While I can appreciate the opposing view, I believe doing away with this important law enforcement tool would be a bad mistake. Dangerous, yes, but so is walking across the street.

S&W 910
March 5, 2006, 06:10 PM
most traffic laws are just a racket, as are drug laws , gun laws, prostituion laws I could go on and on but I have to go to my driving job ...




lol :D :D :D

atek3
March 5, 2006, 06:23 PM
I don't mind the police writing tickets for behavior that is actually unsafe, but tickets for speeding when the road is dry, sun is shining, and no other cars are nearby...that's total revenue generating BS.

Also checkpoint, sobriety checkpoints, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them, are BS. I don't care if you catch osama bin ladin at one, that still doesn't change the fact that stopping people for no reason other than being on the public roads at the wrong place and the wrong time, is total BS.

High speed chases for simple speeding is BS. Get their license plate no. Let them go, then confiscate their car if they can't prove that they weren't the driver. The alternative is having police officers and bystanders die trying to chase down velocity scofflaws.

Red light cameras, speed cameras, BS. Red light cameras have been shown by study after study to increase accidents at intersections (mainly caused by people slamming on their brakes and getting rear ended). Speed cameras, maybe if speed limits were set with some basis in reality, but when a 4 lane divided highway in milpitas has a 35 mph speed limit... gimme a friggin break.

haole_boySS
March 5, 2006, 07:45 PM
Low-Sci Obeying the rules for carrying weapons makes sense, yet when we are controlling the path of a 3,000 lb machine, they don't matter? What's the principle difference between a vehicle going 75 with an idiot behind the wheel who has no regard for other people's safety and a bullet fired from a weapon by an idiot with no regard for other people's safety?

By that logic, should you be able to apply for a higher class of driving license? IE: the testing and licenseing that Nascar, NHRA, Indy, Sprints, etc have to go thru to certify that they CAN control their vehicle at high speeds?

Speeding tickets are all about revenue, How many people here can say that they got pulled over for under 90 mph on a highway and then afterward said "I really learned my lesson, i'll never speed again"

No one right? I wouldn't say that. I would just be more careful next time. For the most part, if you are on the highway, or an interstate system and doing the speed limit.....YOU are the dangerous one. You are impeading traffic, making people hit their brakes, change lanes often, etc. We all especially love the guy that goes the limit in the fast lane. They are better than the other million people on the road. There is no reason for us to go faster than them right?

I'm 32 yrs old and i have had Zero accidents and 3 tickets in my 16 yr driving career. All 3 tickets were beat by going to court and pleading "guilty" to the Judge. They give you PBJ, you pay the court costs and the fine and walk with no points on your license. (speeding mind you, not reckless, racing, etc)

They are not trying to slow me down, or get me off the road. They want money for the govt. Same thing with emission stations. anything above 1996 doesnt go on the rollers anymore. I had a 00' Camaro that couldn't be more emission ILLEGAL. I passed everytime. They never questioned the sound of my car or the fact that it was raw fuel that was causing them to cough and gag when my car was running. They plugged into my computer to check for emissions codes. (I had all of them deleted) I passed and left the station wide open throttle. Was that stupid? of course it was. But for the $14 charge, you could have just sent me a notice in the mail that said I could forgo the testing and just send the State a check for $30.

Anyway, speeding tkts are a joke. Its like watching the wildest police videos and having the narrator say "and he was traveling at Break Neck speeds to evade the police" Funny thing being he was doing 90mph.
The crash test dummies have proved that break neck speeds are anything above 35 mph. ;)

Sorry for the rant, its been a long Sunday at work. :o

JMHO

Andy

Taurus 66
March 5, 2006, 08:07 PM
Also checkpoint, sobriety checkpoints, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them, are BS. I don't care if you catch osama bin ladin at one, that still doesn't change the fact that stopping people for no reason other than being on the public roads at the wrong place and the wrong time, is total BS.

Sign of the times ... and get used to it because it's only getting stronger. It's not ever going away. Forget not the families who were devestated by DUI related traffic accidents. Why would someone advocate driving under the influence of any substance?! Is this one's general thought processes while also CCW??

"Oh yeah man, I know my limit. It 6 or 7 beers before puts the gun away. Oh I'm fine, really, trust me <Buuurrrrp> (stumbling about). I'se drink whoose gahs my ... HAA-bit un'er controoll."

Parker Dean
March 5, 2006, 08:14 PM
This, I must admit, makes almost no sense to me.

Obeying the rules for carrying weapons makes sense, yet when we are controlling the path of a 3,000 lb machine, they don't matter? What's the principle difference between a vehicle going 75 with an idiot behind the wheel who has no regard for other people's safety and a bullet fired from a weapon by an idiot with no regard for other people's safety?

I don't care at all if you personally think you can drive safely ten or twenty over. Can everyone else around you do it too? Wanna bet your life on it?

There are lots of people on the road. Not all of them are smart. Get cut off twice and you'll realize that in a big hurry.

Why is it hard to understand that rules are in place for safety in both of these situations?

No, Im not calling gun owners idiots, I know Im the new guy, and I'll get flamed like nobody's business. I'm just boggled by the inconsistency of the situation.

The inconsistency in reaction to enforcement of firearms rules and traffic rules is the result of the apparent inconsistency of intent in enforcement.

Break the laws regarding firearms and prosecution costs the State money, so they have no vested interest in doing so.

Traffic enforcement, OTOH, is a revenue generator for the State and therefore smacks of conflict of interest. This results in a viewpoint that, no matter the protestations to the contrary, enforcement of traffic laws is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to get into peoples wallets.

Hawkmoon
March 5, 2006, 08:20 PM
No one right? I wouldn't say that. I would just be more careful next time. For the most part, if you are on the highway, or an interstate system and doing the speed limit.....YOU are the dangerous one. You are impeading traffic, making people hit their brakes, change lanes often, etc. We all especially love the guy that goes the limit in the fast lane. They are better than the other million people on the road. There is no reason for us to go faster than them right?
You may think you have a reason to go faster than me when I'm already doing the speed limit, but you don't have any right to expect me to get out of your way. What part of "L I M I T" don't you understand? If I am traveling at the speed limit, I am by definition traveling at the fastest speed allowable for that road or highway. By definition, then, nobody has any right to go faster than I am going, or to roar up behind me with their headlights flashing and horn honking and expect me to speed up or pull over so they can indulge in their little ego trip.

I am not making anyone hit their brakes. If everyone drives at the posted limit, traffic flows just fine. It's the people who think they have a God-given right to exceed the limit, pass on the right, weave in and out of traffic, etc, who cause the accidents.

Don't want to have to use your brakes? Don't drive faster than the car in front of you.

atek3
March 5, 2006, 08:31 PM
You may think you have a reason to go faster than me when I'm already doing the speed limit, but you don't have any right to expect me to get out of your way. What part of "L I M I T" don't you understand? If I am traveling at the speed limit, I am by definition traveling at the fastest speed allowable for that road or highway. By definition, then, nobody has any right to go faster than I am going, or to roar up behind me with their headlights flashing and horn honking and expect me to speed up or pull over so they can indulge in their little ego trip.



Was haole_boySS advocating "roar(ing) up behind me with their headlights flashing and horn honking and expect me to speed up or pull over so they can indulge in their little ego trip."?

NO. He was simply saying that there is a time and place to go the speed limit, and the LEFT LANE ISN'T IT. I don't know where you live, but here in the bay area going 55 mph on the 101 or even 65 on the 280 is retarded.

CHP would probably ticket you for doing the speed limit because we have another law making it illegal to obstruct traffic. Go the speed of traffic and you risk a ticket, go the speed limit, you risk a ticket. I'll take my chances at the speed of traffic, thank you very much.

atek3

BAE984
March 5, 2006, 08:37 PM
I'm sure some of you are familiar with the I-285 loop in Atlanta. Here's an interesting video on the 'safety' of doing the speed limit:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552067462745475&q=%22meditation+on+the+speed+limit%22

That's an imovie by some Georgia State students.

I detest traffic stops for a few over. I just got busted for 82 in a 65...on I-20. There was nobody else on the road, I had all 4 lanes (on my side) all to myself. Unless you watch the speedometer constantly it's hard not to speed without any references. Apparently it's safer to concentrate on my speedometer than on the road. It's one thing to stop those that weave in and out of rush hour traffic doing 20 over...quite another to stop people for going 80 on an interstate highway with no traffic.

atek3
March 5, 2006, 08:40 PM
BAE984, I'm feeling your pain. I got nailed in milpitas, ca. Fortunately, my friends who are both bikers and cops are helping me beat the ticket.

That googlevideo is a classic.

haole_boySS
March 5, 2006, 08:42 PM
Atek3, thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. I knew someone would jump to conclusions....but thats what you get on a message board and not being able to convey your reasons face to face. No harm no foul.

You are 100% correct though. My miserable state of MD has the same laws....you can be going the speed limit and think you are legal. But if you are impeading traffic because you are going slowing than the masses you are in fact, Illegal.

Ever heard of majority rules Hawkmoon? lol

Calumus
March 5, 2006, 08:43 PM
"You may think you have a reason to go faster than me when I'm already doing the speed limit, but you don't have any right to expect me to get out of your way."

As long as we're following the letter of the law to a "t" there is one if I recall correctly that says "keep right except to pass" That would help the flow of traffic immensely. Everyday I see people cruising the fast lane at the limit or even 5 under; and every time I see that I also see a steady line of cars having to switch lanes to pass them on the right. After a particularly bad traffic day a couple of weeks ago I caught up to a rolling road-block cruising at 57 or so in the left lane in an area where 85% of the people are cruising safely at 75. Who was it you ask? A driving instructor with a new student. Way to start them off right.:banghead:

Mad Man
March 5, 2006, 08:53 PM
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_6_25/ai_105777520

Your Questions Answered
American Demographics, July 1, 2003
new

Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It's free! Save it.

Byline: JOHN FETTO

INTO HEAVY PEDAL?

To the Editors of American Demographics:

Can you uncover any definitive information on the number of speeding tickets issued annually per state? How many motorists own and use a radar detector, and what are these motorists' demographic profiles? Thank you for your kind consideration of this topic, and keep up the great work! Grant Dahlke K40 Electronics Elgin, Ill.

Dear Grant:

Short of personally calling each and every bureau directly, we were unable to locate any data on the number of speeding tickets issued annually per state. But we were able to find information that you might find interesting regarding how many American drivers nationwide are pulled over for speeding and how many of them are ultimately ticketed.

According to a report released last year by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1 in 10 of the nation's 186.3 million licensed drivers (19.3 million individuals) got pulled over by police in 1999 (the latest year for which data is available). Of those who were stopped, 51 percent (5 percent of all licensed drivers, or 9.9 million individuals) admitted their encounter with the law was due to speeding. Not everyone who is pulled over for speeding winds up making a contribution to City Hall's coffers, but a vast majority do. In fact, 69 percent of drivers who were stopped for speeding in 1999 got a ticket. (The survey does not specifically ask why the drivers got a ticket, only the reason they were pulled over.)


See also

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpp99.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf

rbernie
March 5, 2006, 08:57 PM
As much as I dislike a large, intrusive government I dislike chaos more. And since we can't get people to be responsible and accountable, we have to have some rules to persuade people to straighten up and drive right.
I dislike chaos as much as the next suburbanite. I prefer a nice orderly day without undue surprises or threats upon my life or health. But since when did laws make that possible?

People are largely gonna do what they do regardless of the presence or absence of laws to the contrary. IMO, laws don't prevent acts - they simply provide consequence for 'em for the benefit of those in a mood for retribution.

You want order? Make people care about each other more. You want control? Pass laws.

Mad Man
March 5, 2006, 09:06 PM
In 2002 -- the latest year for which data is available (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf) -- there were 16,783,500 traffic stops conducted by police.

That same year, 10 officers were killed in "Traffic pursuits/stops." (See table 18 and 19 at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/02leoka.pdf ). More officers -- 15 -- were killed in "Ambush situations," and another 10 were killed in "Arrest situations."

There were 56 officers feloniously killed in 2002. 10 is 18% of 56.

The chances of an officer being feloniously killed in any given traffic stop or traffic pursuit is 10 / 16,783,500 = 0.000059%

If we include accidents:

12 officers were killed when "Struck by vehicle," and 4 of those were during "Traffic stops, roadblocks, etc." (See table 52).

So an officer has a 4 / 16,783,500 = 0.000024% of being accidently killed during a traffic stop.

14 deaths ( 10 murder + 4 accident) during 16,783,500 traffic stops = 0.000083% chance of being killed during a traffic stop.
.

Bart Skelton
March 5, 2006, 09:09 PM
You want order? Make people care about each other more. You want control? Pass laws


I pretty much agree with the law passing part, but what are your suggestions as to the rest?

Vern Humphrey
March 5, 2006, 09:19 PM
Several people have mentioned drunk drivers. Years ago, there was a "crackdown" in Columbus, Georgia. There were letters to the editor accusing the police of parking in the lots of bars and waiting for drunks to come out and start their cars. The police denied it.

Why the hell not?!? What's wrong with catching them at the bar, before they get out into the public streets -- if what you're after is cutting down on drunk drivers?

Virginia has a law against radar detectors. Why? It would make more sense to put out detector activators at danger spots (and move then around a bit) so people with detectors would slow down and cue other drivers to do the same.

There are a lot of things we could do to deter dangerous drving that don't involve stopping and arresting people after the fact.

drinks
March 5, 2006, 09:25 PM
It comes down to ;
There are law abiding, responsible citizens and there are criminal scofflaws.

atek3
March 5, 2006, 10:13 PM
There are law abiding, responsible citizens and there are criminal scofflaws.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand

I agree with Rand in this case.

atek3

Kodiaz
March 5, 2006, 11:31 PM
How about this if one cop will enforce the law as written against another cop then it stays everything else gets tossed. I have never seen a police cruiser pulled over for speeding or running red lights. I'm sure when a cop pulls over an off duty cop for whatever short of an accident the off duty cop pulls his cop card and off he goes scott free I'm sure this "courtesy" is extended to judges as well.


If you won't give another cop a ticket then don't give me one. Flogging no problem every time the light is on at Krispy Kreme can I be waiting there with the rattan.

Calumus
March 5, 2006, 11:44 PM
"How about this if one cop will enforce the law as written against another cop then it stays everything else gets tossed. I have never seen a police cruiser pulled over for speeding"

Actually can say I saw this happen once. A state trooper pulled over a local cop in my town for blowing through a 35 at 96! I guess the trooper called dispatch when he saw her fly by to see what was going on and the only call they had was for a woman broken down on the side of the road. She lasted about another week on the force before she relocated. Turns out that she was suspended from a dept. in southern Jersey for misconduct when our local crew of geniuses known as the town committee hired her. Best part is they knew about it and hired her anyway. This in a town that's on the verge of losing their liability insurance because their PD's been sued for misconduct so many times and keeps losing:scrutiny: anyway cheers,
Shawn

Kodiaz
March 5, 2006, 11:53 PM
Pulled over is not the same as issued a summons.

Gordon Fink
March 6, 2006, 12:54 AM
You know what? We could catch even more criminals and generate even more income if we just instituted mandatory inspection checkpoints. While we’re at it, we could issue travel permits and perhaps allow random, unannounced home inspections. Yeah, pretty soon we would be living in a crime-free utopia.

~G. Fink

Bart Skelton
March 6, 2006, 01:09 AM
Mr. Fink,

Are we to gather from your rather haughty post that fecundity in law enforcement is something that doesn't interest you? Or is the rampant trodding upon innocent Americans by prosperous criminals something you find more charming?

Bart Skelton

gunsmith
March 6, 2006, 01:28 AM
thats me behind you flashing my lights, you see, you're in whats called the "FAST LANE" and you are ignoring those signs that say "SLOWER TRAFFIC MUST MOVE RIGHT.
As far as an "ego trip" I was told by a highway patrol officer that it is the person in the fast lane, slowing down everyone behind them that is the one on the ego trip, trying to control every one else on the highway because "they know whats good for everybody"
A guy I once worked for rammed a car off the road, his son had a terrible accident and he was rushing him to the hospital. He flashed his lights but the car in front of him wouldn't move over, so he rammed it and forced it into a ditch.

I have a suggestion, if I am behind you flashing my lights, just wave your handgun so I know it's you...ok?:evil:

Gordon Fink
March 6, 2006, 01:45 AM
Are we to gather from your rather haughty post that fecundity in law enforcement is something that doesn’t interest you? Or is the rampant trodding upon innocent Americans by prosperous criminals something you find more charming?

No, not at all. I am merely following the misapplication of law enforcement to its logical conclusion.

~G. Fink

LMC
March 6, 2006, 02:44 AM
I don't post alot on this board,but when i see someone that thinks he's so great as to have never gotten a traffic violation or for that matter getting caught for one to think that such a petty violation is to be punished in that sort of manner,you sir have your priorites in the wrong place particularly if you are a police officer.

p35bhp09
March 6, 2006, 06:39 AM
Cameras are just another sign of our police state and should be banned. Not to mention the accident rate rises at lights with cameras and often lights with cameras have shorter yellow lights to generate revenue.

chopinbloc
March 6, 2006, 10:28 AM
p35bhp09,

i got a better idea: we declare april 15 national kill a camera day.:evil:

okay, maybe not, but if i were to tape a plastic bag over a redlight camera or radar camera the only thing they could charge me with would be littering, right? i mean, it's not exactly vandalism. and it's legal if you don't get caught, right?;)

someone said something to the effect of "you have no problem with gun laws but you don't like traffic laws." sorry, i'm too lazy to page back and copy/paste it. i got news for you. i am most definitely NOT happy with most, if not all, gun laws. and guess what? i break them, too sometimes. i disregard the law that says i can't bring my gun into olive garden because they serve alcohol. i don't care that it's illegal to bring a gun into the dmv. i don't leave my gun in my car unless i'm expecting metal detectors. some of you get a warm and fuzzy feeling from being good little eloi. fine. i simply ignore laws that i disagree with if i think i can get away with it. "real" criminals do the same but in my opinion (of course) i have a better moral compass. speaking of morals, laws that prohibit actions that do not harm others are immoral. they simply seek to control men. if my reckless operation of a motor vehicle harms or kills someone than beat me, fine me and imprison me. if you're an old fart and 90 mph makes your colon hurt, that's not my fault.

another thing: you. yeah, you in the left lane doing 54 in a 55. who's on the ego trip? me, because i want to simply get where i'm going in an efficient manner while co-operating with other drivers? or would it be you, the one who took it upon himself to delay others and "teach them a lesson?" let me help crystallize the issue. what do you do when (if) you notice that the driver behind you wishes to go faster? do you pull to the right and let them pass or do you slow down to further exert control over them?

let me say it one more time and i'll use small words so everyone can follow along: i don't wish to be controlled by any human being.

Matt G
March 6, 2006, 11:27 AM
Closed because the thread has been off-topic since its inception.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should traffic stops be abandoned ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!