Interesting proposal: no traffic stops for most minor infractions

[laughing dog]

The following article (http://www.startribune.com/police-community-relations-let-s-end-our-love-affair-with-the-traffic-stop/321927221/) makes a case for eliminating traffic stops for minor traffic violations.
The argument is that police let lots of minor violations go on a routine basis. And a traffic stop is now legal permission to search a car or person (i.e. violate privacy). In many countries, citations for speeding and running red lights are done with technology (cameras). Why not let technology take care of those problems? It would reduce risk to the police. It would eliminate the seemingly arbitrary choice to pull person X over compared to person Y. And more citations would probably occur.
Anyway, it is an interesting idea.

 

[Derec]

Speed cameras? No thanks. Red light cameras are diabolical enough. Especially since speed limits tend to be much lower than what is necessary to ensure safety.

And while you can check speed with automatic cameras you'd be hard pressed to do things like not signalling while turning etc. And sometimes such stops lead to finding things like uninsured drivers or suspended driver's licenses. And people like that should be taken off the road. And in rare cases even much bigger fish.

 

[barbos]

It will not work, police unions will be against it, not to mention prison workers

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm against living in a surveillance state so I'd say no to this one. How about you train your police officers instead?

 

[NobleSavage]

I'm against living in a surveillance state so I'd say no to this one. How about you train your police officers instead?

Good luck with that unless you want to get a cabin in the woods like the Unibomber. I'm against it too, but I don't think there is any stopping the "Internet of Things".

 

[laughing dog]

I'm against living in a surveillance state so I'd say no to this one. How about you train your police officers instead?

I thought you lived in Canada.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why not eliminate all traffic citations for violations which don't result in injury or property damage? Increase the number of cameras in use, so that almost all accidents would be recorded. Police would only be involved when someone gets hurt, or a car is damaged. There would no restrictions on speed, but when the speed is a contributing factor to an accident, penalties are increased.

No one has to worry about being hassled with no probable cause.

To make this more effective, the penalties would have to be severe. This would include revocation of driver's license for first offender and forfeiture the car(whatever is left of it) and prison terms for repeat offenders, as well as anyone who drives with a revoked licence.

People would be free to run stop signs and redlights, even drive on the wrong side of the road, just so long as no one is hurt. We'll call this the "Uniform Code of No Harm, No Foul."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That guy is out of it, he's comparing apples and oranges.

While I can't address the specific driving cultures he's referring to I'm pretty sure of what's going on anyway:

1) Fatalities as measured as part of the population is the wrong yardstick. The fatality rate if anything is inversely related to the population. What's important is the miles driven and the speed at which they are driven.

I have seen plenty of aggressive-driving cultures with reasonably low auto fatality rates. All the ones I have experienced fall into one of two categories (and likely into both):

a) Typical driving speeds are low due to traffic congestion. Auto vs auto impacts at 20-30 mph are unlikely to produce fatalities.

b) Driving is not something that much of the population can afford. Few people die riding public transport.

Off the top of my head I note that he's comparing fatality rates in countries with much more expensive fuel--which will translate into less miles driven. Also, the older the city the worse the road situation generally is--slow traffic means few fatalities.

 

[ronburgundy]

To summarize the valid replies by others:

1. The author has zero valid basis for any of his claims regarding the lack of impact of traffic stops on public safety. His comparisons are invalid and highly confounded.
2. Most important safety regulations could not be enforced by cameras alone, including failure to signal, illegal passing (such as by using bike lanes and turn lanes), driving to fast for the road conditions, driving while texting or other cell phone use, broken head or tail lights, and not having a valid license which is often because you are a repeat offender incapable of safe driving.

IF anything, we need far more traffic stops on the roads for most of the above, especially texting and cell phone use which should be treated similar to a DUI.

Also, the arguments about cops letting people go with warnings anyway or not pulling over every observed violation are irrelevant. Warnings still reduce such behaviors, and random occasional penalties for wrongful action still reduce those actions, even if people get away with them most of the time.

As for Bronzeage's "no harm, no foul" argument, that is just absurd. The point is to make the roads safer and prevent harm, not merely to punish offenders after the damage is already done. Also, many of the offending actions cause accidents to other drivers without the offending driver getting hit or ever stopping or caught. For example, a driver cut off by another that failed to signal, may hit their brakes, causing the car behind them to hit them, or may swerve to avoid the non-signaler and hit a car in the next lane. Many offenders that cause serious damage or death get away without ever being identified.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The benefit of camera systems is not only that they permit more extensive enforcement of laws against genuinely dangerous driving behavior, but they do so without racial bias.

Interesting as most photo cops are in most prevalent in minority and poor neighborhoods. And they have been shown not to decrease accidents or dangerous behavior, but only as revenue sources. (Many of the actual problems could be done with better traffic designs or the adjustment of traffic lights, or the simple cutting down of branches obscuring the semaphore).

Also interesting being picked up in a paper in a state where the cops must identify and ticket the actual driver of the vehicle and not the owner (making cameras unprofitable "not effective" according to the corporation that runs them).

 

[Bronzeage]

To summarize the valid replies by others:

1. The author has zero valid basis for any of his claims regarding the lack of impact of traffic stops on public safety. His comparisons are invalid and highly confounded.
2. Most important safety regulations could not be enforced by cameras alone, including failure to signal, illegal passing (such as by using bike lanes and turn lanes), driving to fast for the road conditions, driving while texting or other cell phone use, broken head or tail lights, and not having a valid license which is often because you are a repeat offender incapable of safe driving.

IF anything, we need far more traffic stops on the roads for most of the above, especially texting and cell phone use which should be treated similar to a DUI.

Also, the arguments about cops letting people go with warnings anyway or not pulling over every observed violation are irrelevant. Warnings still reduce such behaviors, and random occasional penalties for wrongful action still reduce those actions, even if people get away with them most of the time.

As for Bronzeage's "no harm, no foul" argument, that is just absurd. The point is to make the roads safer and prevent harm, not merely to punish offenders after the damage is already done. Also, many of the offending actions cause accidents to other drivers without the offending driver getting hit or ever stopping or caught. For example, a driver cut off by another that failed to signal, may hit their brakes, causing the car behind them to hit them, or may swerve to avoid the non-signaler and hit a car in the next lane. Many offenders that cause serious damage or death get away without ever being identified.

Of course it's absurd, but that's the argument against traffic cameras which are used to issue citations. If there isn't a cop to chase the offender down and issue a ticket, and there is no accident, it's a true NHNF situation. Those opposed to traffic cameras want to be able to get away with endangering the public, as long as they don't hit someone.

 

[Bronzeage]

The benefit of camera systems is not only that they permit more extensive enforcement of laws against genuinely dangerous driving behavior, but they do so without racial bias.

Interesting as most photo cops are in minority and poor neighborhoods.

Also interesting being picked up in a paper in a state where the cops must identify and ticket the actual driver of the vehicle and not the owner (making cameras unprofitable "not effective" according to the corporation that runs them).

I don't know if that's a valid claim. The traffic cameras in my city are all situated at the intersection of multi-lane major streets. There is kind of a paradox to the system. If traffic cameras are a true deterrent, there is little income to be made from them. The expense has to be borne by the public, in the name of reduced injuries and property damage. This would be reflected in less work for the Traffic Division and lower insurance rates. In other words, an effective traffic camera system cannot pay for itself from fines.

 

[bilby]

Surely traffic cameras as a means of funding is a libertarian ideal - if the government can be funded in a way that any citizen, no matter how much his income, can opt out of, then taxes are no longer any kind of problem for libertarians. Nobody is forced to pay; anyone who does not wish to fund the government simply has to drive at below the speed limit, and to avoid jumping the lights. No offences = no taxes.

 

[DBT]

I'm against living in a surveillance state so I'd say no to this one. How about you train your police officers instead?

Good luck with that unless you want to get a cabin in the woods like the Unibomber. I'm against it too, but I don't think there is any stopping the "Internet of Things".

Many, if not most people, appear to be accepting the implementation of a surveillance society quite readily...there being virtually no protest movement to speak of.

 

[ronburgundy]

To summarize the valid replies by others:

1. The author has zero valid basis for any of his claims regarding the lack of impact of traffic stops on public safety. His comparisons are invalid and highly confounded.
2. Most important safety regulations could not be enforced by cameras alone, including failure to signal, illegal passing (such as by using bike lanes and turn lanes), driving to fast for the road conditions, driving while texting or other cell phone use, broken head or tail lights, and not having a valid license which is often because you are a repeat offender incapable of safe driving.

IF anything, we need far more traffic stops on the roads for most of the above, especially texting and cell phone use which should be treated similar to a DUI.

Also, the arguments about cops letting people go with warnings anyway or not pulling over every observed violation are irrelevant. Warnings still reduce such behaviors, and random occasional penalties for wrongful action still reduce those actions, even if people get away with them most of the time.

As for Bronzeage's "no harm, no foul" argument, that is just absurd. The point is to make the roads safer and prevent harm, not merely to punish offenders after the damage is already done. Also, many of the offending actions cause accidents to other drivers without the offending driver getting hit or ever stopping or caught. For example, a driver cut off by another that failed to signal, may hit their brakes, causing the car behind them to hit them, or may swerve to avoid the non-signaler and hit a car in the next lane. Many offenders that cause serious damage or death get away without ever being identified.

Of course it's absurd, but that's the argument against traffic cameras which are used to issue citations. If there isn't a cop to chase the offender down and issue a ticket, and there is no accident, it's a true NHNF situation. Those opposed to traffic cameras want to be able to get away with endangering the public, as long as they don't hit someone.

So your post was pure sarcasm? Sorry, that didn't come through, especially since it was only as absurd as the OP itself, and mockery is hard to spot when it isn't more extreme than what it is mocking.
I don't oppose cameras, especially at intersections and they should also be used more to penalize "blocking the box", which is not the female version of "cock-blocking" but rather entering the intersection prior to traffic in front of you clearing it, so that you block cross traffic when the light turns red. It is a massive problem in cities. Also, cameras should be used to catch cell phone users and texters.
Speed cameras are acceptable but should all be very clearly marked (if the point is to slow people down and not just raise revenues) and set to catch reckless speeds, not 5 mph over bogusly low limits. In my city, they are starting to switch 35 mph major cross town roads to 20 mph "park zone" limits with no parks anywhere nearby, and coincidentally install speed cameras there at the same time. It is a blatant cash grab. The danger with cameras that catch all offenders, is that municipalities trying to raise revenue, then hatch schemes to change the laws so that most everyone becomes an offender.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Interesting as most photo cops are in minority and poor neighborhoods.

Also interesting being picked up in a paper in a state where the cops must identify and ticket the actual driver of the vehicle and not the owner (making cameras unprofitable "not effective" according to the corporation that runs them).

I don't know if that's a valid claim. The traffic cameras in my city are all situated at the intersection of multi-lane major streets. There is kind of a paradox to the system. If traffic cameras are a true deterrent, there is little income to be made from them. The expense has to be borne by the public, in the name of reduced injuries and property damage. This would be reflected in less work for the Traffic Division and lower insurance rates. In other words, an effective traffic camera system cannot pay for itself from fines.

In theory. In practice here, the company chose the placement which were in poor neighborhoods at intersections that needed to be upgraded. These were signaled out for "safety" although nothing was done to improve safety. One was notoriously bad and trees were planted in front of the semaphore light to obscure them. The city could never explain how the photo enforcement actually reduced the increasing number of accidents at several corners, but did mention that revenue streams would be hurt and taxes would be raised. Political pressure was mounting when our state supreme court affirmed its previous ruling that the operator of the vehicle was responsible for traffic violations (not the owner) and it was the city's job to determine who was driving the offending vehicle.

The cameras were then dropped as revenue streams were not healthy enough to continue the corporate-government project.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't know if that's a valid claim. The traffic cameras in my city are all situated at the intersection of multi-lane major streets. There is kind of a paradox to the system. If traffic cameras are a true deterrent, there is little income to be made from them. The expense has to be borne by the public, in the name of reduced injuries and property damage. This would be reflected in less work for the Traffic Division and lower insurance rates. In other words, an effective traffic camera system cannot pay for itself from fines.

In theory. In practice here, the company chose the placement which were in poor neighborhoods at intersections that needed to be upgraded. These were signaled out for "safety" although nothing was done to improve safety. One was notoriously bad and trees were planted in front of the semaphore light to obscure them. The city could never explain how the photo enforcement actually reduced the increasing number of accidents at several corners, but did mention that revenue streams would be hurt and taxes would be raised. Political pressure was mounting when our state supreme court affirmed its previous ruling that the operator of the vehicle was responsible for traffic violations (not the owner) and it was the city's job to determine who was driving the offending vehicle.

The cameras were then dropped as revenue streams were not healthy enough to continue the corporate-government project.

In Louisiana, the citations are in the same class as a parking ticket. It doesn't count as a moving violation and the fine is upon the registered owner of the vehicle.

 

[Achwienichtig]

What is needed is better human judgment, not a replacement of human judgment.

When cops have quotas to fulfill, their judgment is based on monetary interest rather than on their duties as civil servants. More often than not, cops are willing to let people go with just warnings so long as they have fulfilled their quota.

Switching to an automated system doesn't change the policies which place monetary interests above civil service.

 

[Uwe]

I'd like to own a dashboard cam (indeed, a 360 degree cam) with some form of tamper-resistant, legal-evidence quality certification for my private vehicle.
Then if someone wrongs me, I just click a button and the proof of the offense is sent to the cops for record keeping and potential citation.
If someone were to get regular complaints from all sorts of other drivers, the hypothetical aggressive driver ought to be taken off the road.

 

[Malintent]

And a traffic stop is now legal permission to search a car or person (i.e. violate privacy).

source, please? It is not, and it would be unconstitutional to allow that.
speeding (for example) is not probable cause to search a vehicle... for what?? lead in the foot?

The cop has to claim something was in plain sight that caused alarm (a weapon, drug paraphilia, a ransom note.. a shovel and pale of lye.... something... anything.

If a cop ever asks if you would like to step out of the car, you should state that you will comply with his orders, and ask if he is ordering you out of your car. "Will you..." is not an order, and if you choose to exit your vehicle at that time (without being 'ordered'), you are technically "abandoning the vehicle", and it can be searched.

If a cop asks if he may search your vehicle, the correct response is, "I am sorry officer, I make it a policy to never allow searches without warrant". They usually then ask you if you are a lawyer, lol. You should say, "no, sir, just an informed civilian that values our constitution and the greatness of our country that it represents. I would hate to diminish it by abandoning the rights it provides".

IF they order you out of the car and insist on a search, they are within their right to do so, but it must be justified and they must state what their probable cause was and what they are looking for. If you wish to 'fight' that, you can only inform the police officer that he has violated your rights by failing to site probable cause (or lying about a fabricated probable cause), and failing to produce a search warrant. If he just ignores you, remind him this is a serious issue that potentially can cost him his job, or possibly even result in jail time himself. It also invalidates anything he might have found as inadmissible due to violation of due process, so he is essentially killing the case he (wrongfully) thinks he is creating.

You can also mention that while you are not a lawyer, you hear they are everywhere for hire and love cases like these... which is a great time to ask the all import question that you should always be ready to throw on a cop that you feel is just fishing for more... "May I go, or are you detaining me". To "detain" someone has specific meaning to it, that involves a lot of paperwork and evidence gathering. It is the "if you fuck with me more, you supervisor is going to be reviewing this", statement.