A reader informs me that the authorities in his state are about to do what the authorities in most other states already do: Empower local armed government workers to use radar to entrap “speeders.” In my reader’s state, only state-level armed government workers – the state police – were endowed with radar guns.
Now the local – county and city – armed government workers have them, too.
As in my rural county, where the local sheriff’s office did not use radar to catch”speeders” until about a couple of years ago. The county AGWs also drove old Ford Crown Vics. Some of these were more than ten years old and had more than 200,000 miles on them. 
Then one day, a half dozen brand new “police interceptor” Ford Explorer SUVs appeared in the parking lot – each equipped with radar.
I suspect a “grant” was acquired from the federal apparat in DC to finance this; either that or the rent we “land owners” are forced to pay in order to be permitted to continue living on the property we paid for years ago was diverted to the purpose.
At any rate, the reader asks me for my thoughts – and about how to fight this. I believe they only way to win this is to successfully challenge the concept of actionable speed limits.
Speed advisories are great; there is nothing wrong with letting motorists know that there is a curve up ahead which they might not be familiar with and that perhaps it’d be sound policy to reduce their speed.
But enforceable arbitrary speed limits are a moral affront because they are no different than any other arbitrary rule – and laws ought to be premised on moral right/moral wrong.
It’s obviously wrong to just walk up to someone and hit them – and the law forbidding (and punishing) this when done is morally correct. Everyone understands this. We have a victim – someone who has been harmed. And we have a deliberate act, an intent to harm.
These are the basic elements of a crime.
Breaking a rule is not a crime – and treating a rule-breaker as a criminal is tyrannical. The rule-breaker who is punished becomes the victim and the government – that is to say, the busybodies and control freaks who constitute “the government” become the criminals.
Who has been harmed by the driver who proceeds at 59 MPH in a “55” zone? To drive 59 MPH is by definition rule-breaking “speeding” but almost never punished for doing it because everyone knows speed limits are arbitrary rules – including the armed government workers who enforce them. But these AGWs will usually arbitrarily enforce the speed limit once the prospective victim is driving 61 MPH or 63 MPH in the 55 zone.
Why so?
Why is 61 any less arbitrary than 59?
Or 70, for that matter?
The fundamental problem with rules, as a moral question is precisely that they are arbitrary – the codified and actionable version of a parent telling his kid to obey “just because I said so.”
The bright kid isn’t satisfied with this answer, for the obvious reason that it’s an evasion of an answer that comes down to nothing more than the threat of punishment for questioning it.
Actionable speed limits are just the same.
If you get pulled over for breaking the rule that decrees you must not drive faster than 55 and ask the armed government worker who you’ve harmed, the most he’ll be able to come up with is that your driving faster than the arbitrarily set velocity maximum is “unsafe” – but according to whom?
By what standard?
A generic, dumbed-down one. The unspoken standard is that if a Parkinsonian and Glaucomic old lady cannot handle driving faster than 35 on a given stretch of road without running off the road – or running into something – then everyone must be restricted to the same speed. This amounts to the same thing as a rule forbidding anyone from walking faster than a shuffling old man can walk – and making it an actionable offense to attempt to get around the shuffling old man.
It’s even worse, actually – because the Parkinsonian and Glaucomic oldster is a construct – a hypothesized person, not an actual one. 
Nonetheless, everyone is held down to a presumptively dumbed-down standard premised on a fiction – and punished before any harm is caused on the basis of the assertion that a harm might result from driving faster than “X.”
It’s Byzantine and Kafkaesque – which dealing with arbitrary rules always is. Common sense doesn’t enter into it. Hence the bureaucrat’s cynical riposte, “the rules are the rules.”
And the AGW’s “I’m just doing my job.”
But that ought not to be the basis for actionable laws – in a free society, that is. Which is why we no longer live in one. It is why one almost never hears anyone say, “it’s a free country.”
Because we all know it isn’t.
So, how fast should a person be allowed to drive? Or put a better way: How fast should a person be able to drive without it being an actionable offense?
As fast as he deems reasonable and prudent. And so long as no actual harm is caused. 
This was once upon a time the actual legal standard in at least one state (Montana) until it was superseded by a rule-following regime imposed by the billy stick (i.e., Uncle threatening to “withhold” highway funding money already stolen from the residents of that state).
The beautiful thing about the reasonable and prudent standard is that it allows for the obvious, everyone-knows-it differences in individual skill and capability. Action only becomes actionable when it is objectively indisputable that the person’s actions caused harm.
Imagine that.
A driver who has not caused harm – who not lost control of his vehicle – should be presumed to be driving reasonably and prudently. This ought to be bulletproof as a legal argument, a slam-dunk defense against any trumped-up charge of “speeding.”
The fact that he may be driving faster than someone else feels to be reasonable and prudent is not evidence that he isn’t.
Feelings ought not to be the basis of actionable laws.
Harm caused is the only objective standard.
It’s true, of course, that such a standard opens the door to risk. To the potential for harm. But that is not the same as actual and the distinction ought to be important.
Of course some people will not drive prudently or reasonably and will cause harm – and such people ought to be held fully responsible for the harm they cause, because they are morally responsible for having caused it.
But no one else is responsible for harms they didn’t cause.
Punishing people who haven’t caused harm because some worry they might doesn’t eliminate risk, either. This is the Utopian Fallacy – the unspoken false premise of rule-defenders that their rules eliminate the problem. It is often presented along with the demand that Libertarian alternatives must achieve perfection. The eradication of all harm and all risk.
Some people will still drive unreasonably and imprudently, either way. The big difference is that the reasonable and prudent drivers are always at risk – under the rule regime – of being punished for nothing more than ignoring arbitrary rules.
Under the Libertarian system, they’d be left in peace – having not breached the peace.
Which brings us back to police radar.
It is merely a tool for enforcing arbitrary rules, for the purpose of mulcting drivers who’ve not caused any harm, as such. An armed government worker sits in his car, pointing his radar gun at passing traffic – almost all of which is “speeding” to some degree because almost all speed limits are ignored to some degree because almost all speed limits are understood by almost everyone to be artificial, dumbed-down constructs.
An AGW arbitrarily decides that 39 (in a 35) is “safe” today while another AGW might arbitrarily decide differently and so lets the cars which are “speeding” up to that arbitrary number pass by unmolested. But then a car passes by at 41 – and the AGW pulls its driver over and mulcts him.
The 41 MPH driver did no more in terms of causing harm than the drivers who passed the gantlet doing 38 or 39. All of them broke the arbitrary rule – but the AGW enforced it arbitrarily upon the 41 MPH driver.
Tomorrow, it might be the 38 MPH driver. Or no drivers at all, because the AGW decided to set up his trap someplace else. Meanwhile, no harm is caused by the traffic flowing by his old speed trap at 40-something or even faster.
This goes on every day, in every town and city across the country. It has nothing to do with saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety. It has everything to do with the arbitrary enforcement of arbitrary rules.
The harm caused standard requires no radar guns to establish whether harm has been caused.
But there’s not much money – or power – in accepting that standard as the basis of an actionable offense.
Ayn Rand wrote about this problem. She wrote: “There is no way to rule innocent men. 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.”
“Speeding” laws, for instance.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
Mixed feelings about this one. Living in Minneapolis there is zero traffic enforcement meaning flying down side streets, running red lights, and other anti-social driving behavior is par for the course. Of course the flip side is the overzealous LEO writing tickets for 5 over. So this is a grey area.
Also, the risks of speeding have never been higher. For your wallet. My car insurance is already up 60% in the last two years. No tickets, no accidents, no claims. Do you really want to risk making it a 120% increase?
Hi Jake,
I agree with what Philo wrote about holding people fully responsible for reckless/wanton actions that cause harm. Extreme repercussions for such actions will prevent such actions for the most part and more effectively, I think, than blanket/dumbed-down laws.
Problem is unless it’s a Mitsubishi Mirage or a 93 Corolla, most modern cars can comfortably do 80+, and the roads are usually too slow, not to mention the Jabs are finally kicking in as I’m seeing a lot of Dain-Bread clovers on the road, cruising the speed limit in the left lane and getting offended if you aren’t a jabbed sheep like them.
Weird though, Cops are sporadic where I’m driving, usually I can cruise fast on the highway, only blocked by some woman, seasoned citizen or the 18 wheeler cruising in the left, so somethings going on
You’re right that it’s not about safety. But it’s also not about arbitrary rules either.
It’s about revenue, pure and simple.
But I have to ask for clarification about one of your points: When someone is driving in a manner that is clearly dangerous and placing other people at risk, you think there should be no recourse for stopping them until they cause actual harm?
In my mind, it’s no different than defending myself against a physical attack. I don’t have to wait until you stab or shoot me before I can actively defend myself. And we shouldn’t have to wait until a reckless driver kills one of our loved ones before punishing them for placing the rest of us in danger.
Granted, driving a few miles an hour over a posted speed limit is not necessarily reckless and reckless driving wasn’t the subject of your post, but it is the logical endpoint of the argument that drivers should not be punished unless they cause actual harm.
And, of course, the other side to that is insufficient punishment for people who do cause actual harm. Many years ago my sister was “T-boned” in an intersection by a driver who was fiddling with his radio and blew through a red light at highway speed (55 was the limit and he was almost certainly going faster than that). She almost died and has a permanent brain injury causing great difficulty (a huge understatement) in just living her life since the crash. The driver was cited for failure to yield causing injury, was fined a few hundred dollars and court costs. His insurance’s maximum amount didn’t come close to covering her emergency medical bills, let alone follow up care, and when her lawyers tried to sue to get him to take responsibility, he declared bankruptcy.
Her life was dramatically altered as a result of his negligence and his punishment was less than a thousand dollars in fines and court costs and 7 years of bad credit. Oh…and I’m sure his insurance rates went up. Can’t forget that.
IMHO, if we want people to take their responsibilities seriously when operating a two ton lethal weapon in public, we should probably enact serious consequences when people fail to do so…preferably before they kill or seriously injure an innocent bystander.
Hi Sailorcurt!
You ask: “When someone is driving in a manner that is clearly dangerous and placing other people at risk, you think there should be no recourse for stopping them until they cause actual harm?”
This is probably the most difficult sticking point as far as getting people to even think about a libertarian standard (he’s not harmed anyone else so he has a right to be let alone) because it’s pretty evident that – sometimes – harm is imminent. No question. The question, though, is whether to accept that – sometimes – people will cause harm (and when they do, hold them responsible for the damage they cause) and leave everyone else alone – or use the possibility that harm might happen as the standard to “hold people responsible” when they haven’t actually caused any harm.
Put another way – hard cases make bad law. The classic example being that of the reckless idiot who drives 100 MPH through a neighborhood because there are no speed limits. But would speed limits deter a reckless idiot? Do “gun free zones” deter criminals from using guns to murder people? I think the question answers itself.
And – arguably – a society that actually holds people responsible for what the do – and leaves everyone else alone – becomes a more responsible society in general. This is evident.
Per Jefferson, I’d much rather accept a society in which risk is allowed than a society in which risk is used to forbid/control everything. And I don’t see any middle ground because once an exception is made – see that but about hard cases making bad law – then another exception will be made… and before you know it, here we are!
I guess it’s a bit more difficult to just say “we have to accept the risk” when it’s your sister, your daughter, your mother, who’s life was ended or permanently altered because of the recklessness of another.
There are a couple of planks of the libertarian platform that are show-stoppers for me so I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but I do agree with a lot of the “maximum liberty” parts of the platform…with that said, there are actions that are clearly reckless and needlessly place innocents in danger that shouldn’t be tolerated by society whether the instant example actually resulted in harm or not.
I don’t think we should have to wait until some negligent nimrod kills someone before saying “hey…don’t do that in public, it’s dangerous” in as strong of terms as necessary to drive the point home.
The trick is to not take those laws to excess and penalize activities that are not necessarily reckless just because some Karen got their panties in a bunch and said “there oughtta be a law!”
Hi Sailor,
I hear you. But – consider – is it preferable to endow the state with the power to punish everyone in order to reduce the risk to (a hypothetical) someone? Was America a better – or worse – place when everyone was free to carry a gun even though this meant that, inevitably, some criminal/jerk would use a gun negligently or criminally?
Remember the “pandemic”? On the basis of hysteria that “someone” might get sick – or spread sickness – everyone was treated like a presumptive leper and punished if they objected.
Life is unfair. Harm sometimes comes to good people through no fault of their own. This is unavoidable. What’s avoidable is harming people who’ve not actually harmed anyone else. Even if what they’re doing could lead to harm – because “could” is subjective and the danger of subjectivism ought to be obvious. Meanwhile, there is no argument that harm was caused when harm was actually caused. It separates justice from injustice by making justice objective.
Consider how you feel when issued a ticket for “speeding.” Do you feel guilty? Do you feel justice has been served when you are made to hand over money for your “offense”?
Contrariwise, if you inadvertently ran a light and caused an accident, no doubt you’d feel horrible – and wanting to make it right. You’d certainly not feel abused if the judge ordered you to pay for the damages you caused.
But it’s obnoxious – it is tyrannical – to make a person pay (or otherwise punish him) for harms he did not cause.
“Contrariwise, if you inadvertently ran a light and caused an accident, no doubt you’d feel horrible – and wanting to make it right. You’d certainly not feel abused if the judge ordered you to pay for the damages you caused.”
Certainly. But I’m not everyone and everyone is not me. The dude that permanently altered my Sister’s life had no problem leaving her to her own devices to deal with the consequences of his negligence.
“Was America a better – or worse – place when everyone was free to carry a gun even though this meant that, inevitably, some criminal/jerk would use a gun negligently or criminally?”
Bad example. I’m not advocating banning cars or restricting their use to only government actors in order to prevent the possibility of harm, I’m advocating consequences (preferably severe consequences) for reckless use of them that place others in danger.
Would you be ok with me pulling my gun out and shooting it at you, your wife and your kids because…say…you cut me off in traffic? As long as I’m a bad shot and don’t actually hit anyone, under your premise, no harm – no foul right?
Ok, maybe that one was a bad example because there was intent to cause harm, even though I failed.
Better example maybe: New Year’s day and I shoot my gun into the air in celebration. The bullet falls to the ground, missing your daughter by inches. Pure luck that she survived, but there was no harm caused, so no worries right? Idiots firing guns into the air is just one of those risks you have to take in a free country.
Again, I’m not advocating for banning guns or restricting their use to government officials…I’m advocating for enforcing consequences when someone uses the tool irresponsibly.
Operating a lethal weapon in public, whether a firearm or a motor vehicle, is a serious proposition and should be undertaken responsibly and with due care for the potential impact on others. In my humble opinion, negligent use of any deadly object in public should result in severe consequences before your negligence kills my son or daughter or sister or wife, not after they’re already dead.
Hi Sailor,
I’m sorry about your sister; that’s hardly necessary to say. But would a law have prevented it? I don’t see that it would have. There are laws against drunk/reckless driving and yet there are plenty of irresponsible/criminal people who don’t give a flip. That is the paradox. Responsible people don’t need the restraint of “the law” to behave responsibly. But they are “held responsible” – by “the law” – for what irresponsible people do. Gun laws are one example. “Speeding” laws another.
Waving – let alone pointing – a gun at someone is an objective threat of murderous intent. Driving faster than the government says you may is not the same kind of thing, because it is subjective.
How “fast” is “too fast”? Opinions vary.
Whereas anyone who points a gun at someone has just threatened to shoot them.
One last comment, then I’ll leave it be.
Oh…and thank you for keeping it civil. Respectful disagreement in an online environment seems to be a rare thing these days.
We’re talking about two different things. I don’t disagree with your point about speed limits per se. I only disagree with the contention that there should be no legal restrictions on actions unless there is actual harm caused.
Would a law have prevented the dude that crashed out my Sister from driving negligently? Not as the laws stand. There are already laws against disregarding automatic signals. The guy paid his minor fine and went on his merry way leaving my Sister and our family to deal with the devastation he caused.
But if the laws were severe enough…and targeted toward actual negligent behavior and not just silly little infractions designed to squeeze money from the motoring public rather than impact safety…who knows. We’ve never tried it.
The problem and possible solution to this dilemma has been hinted at further up in the discussion. Your sister was not compensated in proportion to her injuries. The perpetrator was not sufficiently punished.
SEVERE consequences for behavior that causes injury is a possible solution. These consequences would act as a powerful deterrent.
Make the consequences severe and leave the people who have not caused any harm in peace.
The International Space Station is red-lining at 17,500 mph. The Space Flight Police can fine them up the wazoo.
Can’t zip through trailer parks at 40 mph, somebody could get hurt and you deserve to be ticketed, maybe even punched in the snoot for being a dumbass.
Can’t be on an interstate limping along at 30 mph, you will be stopped, a stern warning or maybe even a ticket for being a dumbass preventing smooth interstate traffic flow.
You have to assess the sitch.
Can’t take it with you when you’re gone
But I want enough to get there on
And I ain’t ever growin’ old
If I keep on rolling with the flow – Rollin’ with the Flow, Charlie Rich
Maybe this is a good thing – now the radar detector can work against the local guys too. No need to worry about electronic speed gizmos and white painted lines across the roads. Use their tools against them.
Wow,,, Very first time my comments are waiting for moderation.
Hi Ken,
It’s on account of the spammers; apologies for this – to you and to all. I’d love to be able to crush them all underfoot like the cockroaches they are.
What part caused it so I can avoid it in the future. Probably where I stupidly had two identical links. Likely my fault. no apologies necessary. I didn’t proof read it before submitting.
In a couple of years the problems will eclipse those mentioned by Eric today.
For example,,, capital gains tax on unrealized gains. Houses have rocketed into the stratosphere. A hundred thousand dollar house 20 year ago could run $7-900,000 today.Can you imagine a $7-800,000 gains tax! If you think the tax on property you thought you owned is high now,,, wait!
The house next to mine was origionally a $30,000 dollar Jim Walters home with some add-ons. Went for $270,000. It appears four or five families are ‘sharing’ the house.
Then there is Michael Obama’s recent mouthings at the DNC.
eg: ” Those with more are not to be trusted. Those with more are the reason you have less.”
Pure unadulterated communism.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-obamas-fuel-class-warfare/
If you can,,, I suggest getting the hell out of here. If you are young enough with skills Russia is accepting those running from Western Imperialism. Mexico, Central America are decent.
The USA as a free nation is dead.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-obamas-fuel-class-warfare/
Hi Ken,
If they try to tax “unrealized gains” on homes – a kind of federal property tax – it will incite armed resistance. Because at that point, people literally have nothing left to lose except their lives.
So be it.
[ it will incite armed resistance. ]
I’m not so sure… Looking at Australia and the UK they had no problem disarming them. In the USSA only 1 in 3 qualify physically for the armed forces. Mentally it’s probably less. They’ll likely lower standards like they do everything else. Either way they’ll likely be defending Israhell. Disarming Americans will be the fbi and local ‘elected’ armed government agents.
The way I see it is they’re gonna have to do something to provide ‘homes’ for their imported uneducated and unskilled friends. Today they are paying rent to some ‘Americans’ that allow the replacements a room in their homes.
Somehow I’ll bet stealing houses will be next if not already happening.
They know the speed that traffic drives at on a road….
The speed limit is set below that to generate revenue…..safety is not a consideration….The camera suppliers share the revenue generated…..
Now speed limits are also set to stop people driving…some G7 countries have cities with almost a blanket 30 km/hr….about 18 mph speed limit…this is designed to turn people off from driving…stop them driving….add in….. removing car lanes for bike lanes, narrowing the roads, removing parking, speed and noise cameras….the driving experience becomes painful….
The goal….you will own nothing and walk around you 15 min city/prison……..
So much corruption.
The National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control devices specifies that speed limits be set at 10% above the 90 percentile speed. So if 90% of traffic is going 70 or less, the speed limit if posted should be at least 77 mph. This standard is federal law, explicitly designed to shut down speed traps. If the road gets federal funding, it’s the law. And by commingling of funds, all roads are federally funded.
Surveillance requires a warrant. How does radar surveillance measuring an individual’s speed not require a warrant specifying the name of the specific individual and what evidence is expected to be gathered? The “Bill of Rights” is black letter federal law.
How is a “speed limit enforcement campaign” legal but a quota system not?
It’s about to become necessary for drivers to go armed for self defense against road bandits and travel in convoys for mutual support.
‘‘Twas the dark of the moon on the sixth of June in a Kenworth haulin’ logs
A cab over Pete with a reefer on, and a Jimmy haulin’ hogs.
We were headed for bear on I 1 0 bout a mile out of Shakey Town
I says “Pig Pen, this is Rubber Duck, and I’m about to put the hammer down!”
The one issue with the “reasonable and prudent standard”, is that it still arbitrary.
I can easily foresee the following scenario: You have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car? “Reasonable and prudent” for you is 10 MPH.
Perhaps I’ve forgotten, or never read the distinction, the difference between a rule-breaker vs. a criminal. This is really significant:
“Breaking a rule is not a crime – and treating a rule-breaker as a criminal is tyrannical. The rule-breaker who is punished becomes the victim and the government – that is to say, the busybodies and control freaks who constitute “the government” become the criminals.”
…Just thinking of how this came about, the merger of rules with criminal law. I suspect it was finalized when there were no more Peace Officers, when all had become Law Enforcement Officers.
The lust to dominate fueled the process?
Here’s a wacky idea, take down all the speed limit signs and eliminate ALL speedometers. Speedometers only encourage laziness and lawlessness.
If you’ve never driven without a speedometer you don’t realize how liberating it is. One MUST pay attention to their surroundings.
Keep right except to pass would suffice.
I can attest to this. My old Charger’s speedo is bad (it jumps around). So I unplugged it until I can get it fixed.
It’s a strange feeling not knowing exactly how fast you are travelling. You learn to listen to engine RPM and pay more attention to what the drivers around you are doing.
Driving alone on a road with no other cars around is a different experience. Knowing the speed limit, but not knowing exactly how fast you are going.
If I ever get pulled over for speeding, “my speedometer is broken, so I was just driving at a reasonable speed for the road conditions.”
Indeed, Philo –
You no doubt know this but some may not, so – for those who don’t – race cars usually don’t have speedometers. When I do track days on my bike, you tape over the speedo. It’s – as people have noted – a distraction and (here it comes) unsafe, even. Imagine that!
There is a certain amount of thrill that a driver gets when he or she places the speedometer above the middle number (usually 70 or 80) and even more north of 100. I’m not in favor of getting rid of speedometers, however, speed limits is another story entirely.
Truth be known, I would probably have a lower average speed if I didn’t have a speedometer to show how fast I’m going. I like to beat the clock.
What if cops and other taxing authorities found themselves and their families unwelcome everywhere including at the local gun clubs where everyone likes to lick LE’s balls.
When they can barely go about life without being insulted, ignored and verbally assaulted, things will change.
When every private business refuses them, they will leave town so to say.
Requires no law breaking.
[What if cops and other taxing authorities found themselves and their families unwelcome everywhere including at the local gun clubs where everyone likes to lick LE’s balls.]
They would be sued and fined out of business. They would be harassed to and from work.
You’re right about the local gun clubs,,, also applies to most FFLs as well.
It will never happen. The “pro government agent” propaganda is at its highest levels in history. In every TV show and movie, government agents are portrayed as honorable and highly intelligent. Any wrongdoing on the part of government agents is carefully portrayed as a “bad apple”, certainly not an indication of systemic rot.
You have to watch TV shows and movies from the early 80’s and previous to get a glimpse of realistically portrayed government agents (bumbling imbeciles or just plain evil).
I can almost pinpoint the moment in the early 80s when this happened. It was when the A-Team went from being on the run from the gov’t after being betrayed in the ‘Nam to working for it again.
It is pretty rotten, but I stopped watching prime time TV (except for Dallas) in 1980 after the Rockford Files went off the air. Rockford seemed to have a realistic and humorous skepticism of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Although a liberal, he casted a jaundiced eye on bureaucratic rules and regulations as well.
Beginning in the 1980s, when Hill Street Blues came out, cop shows became boring and routine. The cultural shift was well underway.
Beginning in the late 1970s there was a knee jerk public reaction to permissive judge rulings and whatnot that led to the boot licking of law enforcement by the time Raygun became president.
A lot of that remains despite the unlawful imprisonment of J-6 protestors although I believe that the pendulum is swinging the other way.
The whole BLM / Defund the Police psyop was put in place to put us in a state of cognitive dissonance. “On one hand, I hate everything the BLM movement stands for. On the other hand, I hate cops and agree they should be defunded.”
Brilliant.
All of the “rules” are just revenue enhancements for the local towns. Hard to get a speeding ticket here because the roads are so damn congested most of the time but the LEO’s just love to bag people for not making a “full and complete stop” at a stop sign. I always do a quick check in the rearview and scan for parked fuzzmobiles while rolling through the stop.
“And the AGW’s “I’m just doing my job.” But that ought not to be the basis for actionable laws – in a free society, that is. Which is why we no longer live in one. It is why one almost never hears anyone say, “it’s a free country.””
The police do not make the laws. Itz our elected government officials that write the laws. Itz difficult to know what they are actually doing day to day as most folks are busy making a living.
Even as we sleep I suspect they are writing new laws which then police and others are made to enforce. Has anyone attended one of the lawmakers meetings? Has anyone contacted the lawmakers to ask them to change the laws? I suspect that most of the citizens are just fine with the laws. What your neighbors think/believe will astound you. Remember that 51% tell the rest what to do. After all itz a “democracy”. Bring some pressure on the lawmakers, they’re the real problems.
The only time I heard where laws/enforcement were changed was when in the black part of town the citizen claimed that they were being picked on by “The Man” with too many parking tickets being given out.
“Has anyone contacted the lawmakers to ask them to change the laws?”
I’m not in the habit of begging politicians for my freedom.
“The police do not make the laws.”
Correct, but they are given “discretion” to enforce laws when they choose and ignore lawless behavior at their whim. Such power to grant flawed human beings!
One reason why the traffic stop remains is because of the opportunity to discover other crimes, such as not carrying the proper documents and letters necessary for travel today. Or perhaps in possession of some controlled substance you’re not licensed to possess.
But to the point, there’s the concept of a perfect speed for travel on any given road. Based on science as our government is, that means there’s a way to determine what that speed should be. This should factor in an infinite number of variables that can be distilled down to one number: The One True Speed for that section of road.
CDOT is playing around with variable speed limits, depending on weather and other factors. In Glenwood Canyon, which traditionally had a 50 MPH speed limit throughout, they raised the nominal speed limit for passenger cars and light trucks to 60 MPH. This seems to have triggered CDL drivers to run fast, even though truck speeds were still kept to 50, with an added rule they were restricted to the left lane (which I believe was in place before but rarely enforced). Once the speed limit was increased it was game on, now normal speeds though the canyon are 65+ and people still tailgate if you’re in the passing lane. Truck accidents seem to have gone up, but that could just be due to more reporting by media. For sure they’ve added a lot more signage for the left lane truck restriction.
Thing is, when it is snowing or raining they drop the speed to 35. Not 50, not 55… 35 MPH. That’s ridiculous. And no one pays any attention to the “rain mode” PSL. And there are sections of the canyon that actually warrant a 50 MPH approach to some of the curves. But no matter, all speed limits are suggestions until you meet the men in blue. Then you were always going too fast. Otherwise you wouldn’t be having that conversation, right?
What seems to be lost on Eric is that without traffic enforcement, the cops will have little reason to beat the tar out of you for thinking your actions that haven’t caused any problem are not a problem.
How will they ensure that the populace is in fear, thus kept under control?
If traffic enforcement is taken away, there may not be enough work left to justify the size of the police force. What will these poor guys do? They aren’t really qualified to do much else.
Should they all become bouncers or rent-a-cops? Think of the children!
That thin blue line is all that keeps us from being overrun by Osama bin Ladin’s special terrorist forces and the local thugs from forcefully moving into our houses and eating our soup.
Will we be forced to call crack heads to protect us? We sure can’t rely on crack heads to taser us when we call them. And crack heads don’t have armored vehicles to deploy other heavily armed crack heads from to bust down the door of the wrong house and kill our pets.
Who will fill this void?
Indeed, Dan –
Isn’t it great?
One of the pernicious aspects of all this is that it alienates people who aren’t criminals from what ought to be peace keepers. Who, in their turn, are alienated from the population they “serve.”
“If traffic enforcement is taken away, there may not be enough work left to justify the size of the police force.”
Get rid of “vice” as crime and you could probably reduce the “force” by 90% or more. The problem then becomes dealing with a bunch ‘roid laden, authoritarian sadists that can no longer be employed in a civilized society.
Our local buzz cut ‘n’ body armor popo are now driving matte black cruisers with matte black insignia. Camouflage you see, since we’re the enemy.
I know my own driving skills are waning with age and for the most part follow the arbitrary speed limits in town. That’s for me, not for them. Interstates are a different animal. If you follow the posted speed limit you’re gonna stack traffic up and piss off other drivers.
If I were ever elected governor (LOL), first thing I’d do is require all police vehicles be painted optic orange and make all troopers wear high vis vests when on duty.
For their own safety.
I’d open the press conference with a series of dash cam videos showing cops being hit by motor vehicles while performing traffic stops. Then I’d wait for the inevitable “But if they’re seen how will they pull people over?” question. Simple answer: If you see a cop, you slow down, which is safer. If a cop is visible, he’s safer. It’s purely a safety issue. Visible cops are a proven deterrent to crime too.
make all troopers [male as well as female] wear high [heeled shoes and black lipstick] when on duty.
Expect a different demographic to apply for the job.
Require a 24″ crowbar be carried in all patrol cars, in order to separate the men from the boys.
Not bad but shocking neon pink would be more distinctive and visible.
The matte black logos on black police cars is defined as subdued graphics and should be illegal.
Here in the USA, police are not only devious and dishonest, but some of their actions are downright criminal. Qualified immunity provides an out (get out of jail free card) for just about any police officer’s behavior.
The cat and mouse games that they play do nothing but foster disrespect for the law enforcement profession.
The ability to lie to suspects, and even plant knowledge of a crime in a suspect’s mind in order to facilitate a prosecution (even if the suspect is innocent) are but other aspects of American police and justice system culture that need to go.
Entrapment is but another dishonest tactic, most often used for political purposes.
The “biggie” is civil asset forfeiture which makes police officers no better than the highwaymen of old, with their ability to steal a person’s assets on a whim with no evidence of criminal activity needed.
Compare USA police policies with those in Europe.
In Europe, police vehicles are brightly marked and are much more visible than ordinary vehicles.
Speed traps are nonexistent. Not only that, uniformed police officers are highly visible as well.
Police officers are prohibited from lying to suspects during interrogations.
Police in Europe are not seen as adversaries but as a (somewhat) necessary part of civilized society.
To the USA’s shame, State department advisories available to foreign visitors to the USA mention the fact that it is necessary to obey a police officer’s commands, even if they seem unreasonable. The israeli command and control method of policing is thoroughly ingrained in American police department policies.
We are all Palestinians and Gazans, now…
Austin started deploying the Explorer-based “Interceptor” vehicles about eight years ago, but the units were beset by visibility problems and a carbon monoxide issue which the manufacturer and customizing shop swept under the rug.
Ford was on the verge of bringing back the Crown Vic at the request of many police departments in 2019, but the company saw the writing on the wall after Impeachment started.
Locally, some departments experimented with Chargers, but that vechicle has vanished from fleets around here and many were out on the state surplus lot for a while.
Many, if not most, have a severe allergy to minding their own damn business.
One of my favorites is the
“Slow
Children”
signs.
If you stopped coddling and abusing your children, maybe they wouldn’t be so damn slow.