This opinion piece from the NYT is pure crap on so many fronts.

Police Officers Shouldn’t Be the Ones to Enforce Traffic Laws

Automated technology and unarmed monitors could do most of the job more efficiently and more safely.

By Sarah A. Seo
Dr. Seo is a professor at Columbia Law School who focuses on the history of criminal law and procedure and is the author of “Policing the Open Road.”

April 15, 2021

When Daunte Wright was fatally shot by an officer during a traffic stop near Minneapolis this week, he joined a long list of people who have died at the hands of the police after being pulled over for a traffic violation. Traffic stops should not be harrowing or dangerous experiences, but too often they are for people of color.

One way to address this problem is to reduce the number of encounters that drivers have with police officers. At the same time, any responsible reform must account for the fact that accidents involving motor vehicles are a leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 54. Road safety is itself a serious problem, one that requires laws and regulations that must be enforced.

How can we reduce traffic stops without undermining public safety? The solution is to decrease our reliance on human enforcement. Having police officers implement traffic laws is not the only way to promote road safety. Indeed, the evidence suggests that it is not even the optimal way to do so.

Automated speed cameras and red-light cameras, for example, have proved to be effective in decreasing traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities, precisely because they’re more consistent than human oversight. They also don’t selectively — or discriminatorily — choose to pull over violators. Automating citations for speeding, a major cause of accidents, could significantly reduce police encounters. In New York State, for example, speeding accounts for nearly 20 percent of all traffic citations, according to recent data.

The rest here


"Automated speed cameras and red-light cameras, for example, have proved to be effective in decreasing traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities, precisely because they’re more consistent than human oversight. They also don’t selectively — or discriminatorily — choose to pull over violators. Automating citations for speeding, a major cause of accidents, could significantly reduce police encounters".

Well, except that many states have abandoned the cameras for ticketing drivers as challenges have been made and won that the cameras are unconstitutional.

The whole opinion is more liberal drivel designed to make life easier for crooks and thugs.

So many false statements i lost count

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(04-19-2021 11:59 AM)maximus Wrote:  So many false statements i lost count

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Bingo. Red light cameras have been proven to be more likely to cause accidents as people will stop early to avoid a ticket, possibly causing a crash. A study done in my area is why they pulled almost all red light cameras around me, save for the 5 they keep up as revenue generators for two small towns.

And to the idiot who wrote this opinion piece, how will a red light camera stop a drunk driver, a reckless driver endangering lives, stolen cars, drug runners, etc.?

Great, so instead of having a police officer arrest and jail a guy who has skipped on bail because he got busted with a firearm after being indicted on kidnapping and assault charges, we'll just have the video company send him a $30 ticket for driving with expired tags.

WHy are you liberals so f*cking stupid?

(04-19-2021 01:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Great, so instead of having a police officer arrest and jail a guy who has skipped on bail because he got busted with a firearm after being indicted on kidnapping and assault charges, we'll just have the video company send him a $30 ticket for driving with expired tags.

WHy are you liberals so f*cking stupid?

And if he has any sense at all he'll simply ignore that unenforceable action. I'm not sure about the entire state but I know Memphis no longer uses them and neither does Millington. I got my first one in Millington and being ignorant I mailed in the fine. The next one I got I sent the company attempting to collect a response telling them I had no intention of paying as they had no authority to collect. That was three years ago, I've never heard a word back from them and it never went on my driving record.

And yeah, let's do send unarmed social workers out on calls involving drunk drivers. That's a fantastic idea! What could go wrong?

Check out 1:39 - 2:20.

Looking forward to lettin' that stuff go.

Cincinnati outlawed speed cameras over 15 years ago.

It was the first big city (or county, or state) to do so.

Traffic cameras are revenue generators for kleptocracies that pose as local governments. Nothing more, nothing less.

They're trying to emulate Juarez, Mexico. In Juarez (perhaps other mexican towns) there is the "Transito" which are traffic cops and the regular cops. I've been stopped a few times by the Transitos and before, I don't know now, we would tell the cop that it would be better to pay them the fine then have to go to headquarters and usually the fine would be less but still the cop would be financially subsidized for his trouble, LOL, aka the mordida.

I haven't been in Juarez since 1991. There's no need for me as I didn't lose anything there.

(04-19-2021 01:34 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 11:59 AM)maximus Wrote:  So many false statements i lost count

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Bingo. Red light cameras have been proven to be more likely to cause accidents as people will stop early to avoid a ticket, possibly causing a crash. A study done in my area is why they pulled almost all red light cameras around me, save for the 5 they keep up as revenue generators for two small towns.

And to the idiot who wrote this opinion piece, how will a red light camera stop a drunk driver, a reckless driver endangering lives, stolen cars, drug runners, etc.?

This...I almost literally got rear-ended because of a red light camera. The poor guy behind me had to slam on his brakes and it was my fault. I was in an unfamiliar area and they had one of those stupid cameras. I didn't know how long the yellow was going to last and stopped quickly when I should have kept going. I hate them.

(04-21-2021 04:15 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:34 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 11:59 AM)maximus Wrote:  So many false statements i lost count

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Bingo. Red light cameras have been proven to be more likely to cause accidents as people will stop early to avoid a ticket, possibly causing a crash. A study done in my area is why they pulled almost all red light cameras around me, save for the 5 they keep up as revenue generators for two small towns.

And to the idiot who wrote this opinion piece, how will a red light camera stop a drunk driver, a reckless driver endangering lives, stolen cars, drug runners, etc.?

This...I almost literally got rear-ended because of a red light camera. The poor guy behind me had to slam on his brakes and it was my fault. I was in an unfamiliar area and they had one of those stupid cameras. I didn't know how long the yellow was going to last and stopped quickly when I should have kept going. I hate them.

Red light cameras are notorious for shorter than safe yellow light periods

(04-19-2021 04:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati outlawed speed cameras over 15 years ago.

It was the first big city (or county, or state) to do so.

Traffic cameras are revenue generators for kleptocracies that pose as local governments. Nothing more, nothing less.

In wilmington they broke State law my having non licensed personnel install them. They also didn't give the money to the schools like the state constitution requires

The companies that install, maintain and administer these systems have no legal authority. They cannot force anyone into paying any fines.

(04-21-2021 06:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  The companies that install, maintain and administer these systems have no legal authority. They cannot force anyone into paying any fines.

Yup

If there is no option to contest in a court room as opposed to some thrown together "appeal panel" then it's not valid

It's like we're living in "Robocop".

(04-19-2021 10:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  They're trying to emulate Juarez, Mexico. In Juarez (perhaps other mexican towns) there is the "Transito" which are traffic cops and the regular cops. I've been stopped a few times by the Transitos and before, I don't know now, we would tell the cop that it would be better to pay them the fine then have to go to headquarters and usually the fine would be less but still the cop would be financially subsidized for his trouble, LOL, aka the mordida.

I haven't been in Juarez since 1991. There's no need for me as I didn't lose anything there.

We should NEVER be trying to emulate anything that Mexican law enforcement does, period.