Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry - but that just seems like code for "Do any damn thing I please" and we already have that out on the road!
The more reasonable rules to me mean not pulling over an "older" woman driving an old wagon doing 2 miles an hour over or a *random* traffic stop of someone driving at or below the speed a mile from their home.
I live in a low crime area and these guys just don't have enough to occupy their time.
The more reasonable rules to me mean not pulling over an "older" woman driving an old wagon doing 2 miles an hour over or a *random* traffic stop of someone driving at or below the speed a mile from their home.
I live in a low crime area and these guys just don't have enough to occupy their time.
They justify it by calling them random DUI stops where I live (not including DUI checks where they stop traffic, this is a random single car traffic stop)
I don't mind the full DUI checks around the holidays and 2 or 3 times a year otherwise at random, helps keep a lot of drunk drivers off the road. But to single me out for no other reason than because they're bored and hoping to catch me without insurance or something... what a pain.
They justify it by calling them random DUI stops where I live (not including DUI checks where they stop traffic, this is a random single car traffic stop)
I don't mind the full DUI checks around the holidays and 2 or 3 times a year otherwise at random, helps keep a lot of drunk drivers off the road. But to single me out for no other reason than because they're bored and hoping to catch me without insurance or something... what a pain.
I see your point - but that really seems to be more of an issue of proper and non-abusive enforcement - I was more looking at if were more specific rules than may be outdated or just don't make sense.
Like some states have a "motorcycles must burn headlights 24/7" but not for cars. I never got that - I do get the safety aspect, but why just motorcycles?
Anyhow, I'm kind of drifting away from the original subject here.
I know this is crazy talk - but one could just follow the traffic rules.
.
You mean drive exactly the speed limit in the left lane (or even the middle lane) on a Chicago freeway? I'd give you a life expectancy of about 3 minutes, and if you lived that long, the police would ticket you for obstructing traffic.
If the limit was eighty, then people would want to do ninety. Nothing would change.
There are already sections of interstate in Texas and Utah where the speed limit is 80. People are not doing 90, certainly not as a matter of course. Nor are cadavers piling up on these sections either. When speed limits more closely reflect the speed range set by driver consensus, people don't break the speed limit as much. Higher speed limits have higher compliance rates and the magnitude of non-compliance is lower.
Arlington Heights, OH is a small suburb just North of Cincinnati. About a mile of I-75 runs through it. I run up and down I-75 2-4 times a day and rarely go through there without seeing at least one patrol car. Sometimes I see two.
Anyway, one morning just past 2 a.m. I see a car on the shoulder, with a couple changing a flat tire. Hidden BEHIND the car was an officer shooting radar! Now, granted, the shoulder was reasonably wide there, but he still could've provided the lights to warn drivers away from them. So much for "Protect & Serve"...
I once had a flat at night, and a cop pulled up behind me, kept his headlights on to give me enough light to work, and served as a caution sign for oncoming drivers. Which I thought was cool, and I waved him a thank you. If he was multi-tasking by radaring for speeders, that's his business.
You mean drive exactly the speed limit in the left lane (or even the middle lane) on a Chicago freeway? I'd give you a life expectancy of about 3 minutes, and if you lived that long, the police would ticket you for obstructing traffic.
There are already sections of interstate in Texas and Utah where the speed limit is 80. People are not doing 90, certainly not as a matter of course. Nor are cadavers piling up on these sections either. When speed limits more closely reflect the speed range set by driver consensus, people don't break the speed limit as much. Higher speed limits have higher compliance rates and the magnitude of non-compliance is lower.
Agreed. Much like the fears that the roads would run red in blood when Montana removed the daytime speed limit. Turned out, most people drove a, well, reasonable speed. The only reason they went back is for fear of losing federal monies for highways and other things (even though they officially said it was because it was too vague to enforce. What a crock).
OK so it has been established that cops have "quotas" more or less, otherwise known as "performance indicators" or "performance measurements", or other PC terminology or alternative methods, or something they can list saying that they were active for a particular hour.
It's also been established that their are so many traffic laws being broken - speeding, vehicle malfunctions, etc. That a cop can write tickets very easily any time he wants, and could probably write them all day. State mandated anti-quota laws probably do keep those munincipalities that want to write tickets all day for revenue in check.
But - crimes - robberies, assualts, murders, break-ins, vandalism, are also being committed. Police devote alot of manpower to traffic enforcement, and one wonders if they direct this manpower at the easiest to enforce and catch area, as well as the most financially rewarding (traffic enforcement), as opposed to the more difficult investigative and preventive work required for real crimes.
That is perhaps the topic that should be discussed.
This is coming from someone that was involved in investigating areas of embezzlement and fraud. Trying to get the police involvement in these cases? Difficult. They wouldn't understand, they had no interest, they didn't care. Much easier to whip out the radar gun and find someone going over a posted speed limit - that's what they were trained to do. What they were not trained to do (except for a very few specialized officers)? Identify complex criminal complaints other than wife beatings and drunks, and of course giving speeding tickets. Time to refocus law enforcement priorities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(not including DUI checks where they stop traffic, this is a random single car traffic stop)
Now, granted, the shoulder was reasonably wide there, but he still could've provided the lights to warn drivers away from them. So much for "Protect & Serve"...
