# Can we use technology to end traffic stops? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395 "2015-07-28T14:31:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/21 "2015-07-28T18:34:53Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > You’re pulled over and the cop says you ran a stop sign. How are you supposed to defend yourself? I recommend kicking him in the shin. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/22 "2015-07-29T01:57:50Z")
Ok, Clearly not a well received idea. I will defend a couple of things though. I incorrectly assumed it would be obvious that I meant minor traffic infractions. So Jackmanni, no lovely drunks weaving around, and being a suspect in a robbery would also not fall under this policy. I should have been more clear. Specifically, what I was trying to suggest was, in cases where an officer has recorded a minor traffic infraction with his dash cam, those types of cases could result in a mailed in ticket rather than a stop. I know I’m just overreacting to the Bland situation and I thank you all for the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/23 "2015-07-29T02:12:42Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > Even today, some transgressions can be prosecuted without having to stop the cars. I do not know about the US, but here in Europe when you are caught speeding or ignoring a red light, the first thing you learn about it is from a letter arriving at your house with a not too flattering photo and a hefty check. > > However, that will never work for all transgressions. If the police see you do something that poses a risk to yourself or others - like driving at night with no lights on - they will have to stop you. Agreed, but it will be a large step forward and a great method of utilizing police in a more efficient, effective, and unbiased way. > [@Bone](#): > > This may be a challenge: No, it isn’t. Traffic cameras are used today without issue. > [@Diceman](#): > > From a civil rights perspective, let’s say you get a letter in the mail saying you ran a stop sign a month ago, please pay the $500 fine. How are you supposed to defend yourself? You can challenge the calibration of the machinery, offer mitigating factors, or explain why the video doesn’t tell the whole story. Essentially, you can raise the same defenses you can to a normal ticket. > [@Telemark](#): > > Traffic stops, in large part, are the way cops get to interact and investigate suspicious cars and drivers. In many instances, the infraction is just needed to open the door to talking to a driver. It’s dangerous, but it’s part of proper police work. > > Also, it removes all discretion from the LEO to give warnings, education, and learn about extenuating circumstances. I am not really sure it’s always part of proper police work when it’s done almost across the board in an uneven and ineffective manner. Besides, why should cops have sole discretion to give warnings for strict liability iinfractions? > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > But we never hear about the thousands and thousands of traffic stops that are routine, some of which get unsafe or drunk drivers off the road or get speeding or distracted drivers to slow down or pay attention. And you never hear about all the guys a thief didn’t rob. Yes, cops by and large do good, but that is their job that they are paid to do. Do we really need to pat them on the back because only a small fraction of their interactions are improper? > [@PastTense](#): > > I have never had a problem with traffic stops; has anyone here? While sometimes I get a traffic ticket, the law enforcement officers have always acted professionally while I have always acknowledged their authority/deferred to them. Yes, a few times. It’s a completely typical experience for minorities in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/24 "2015-07-29T02:57:36Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > No, it isn’t. Traffic cameras are used today without issue. Not here in Minnesota, they aren’t. Our Supreme Court has protected the citizens from this predatory nonsense. And the whole idea is seriously unworkable. XT already touched on the idea of the problems (and expense) of storing the videos. And indexing & cataloging them. (That’s one of the problems delaying implementation of body cameras for police here – the city council is trying to figure out how to pay for all that.) And this is just the digital storage space needed. Haven’t even got into the costs of supplying copies to any person who requests it (public information, you know). Then Plus lawyers who subpoena a copy. Or copies of all videos taken by that cop, to prove that he selectively stops minorities. Then “to the registered owner of the car” – do you realize how many cars are not properly registered? People with legal problems commonly buy cheap used vehicles, and then fail to send in the changed registration, just driving the car using the previous owner’s registration. So the tickets would just go to the previous owner, who no longer has anything to do with the car (but has to take time & effort to prove that in court). That alone could fill a court docket. To say nothing of stolen vehicles. Then “just send the ticket in the mail” – again, how often is the address on file at the Department of Motor Vehicles the current mailing address? People move, and notifying the DMV of a new address isn’t something they often think about. And moving without any forwarding address is especially common among the class of people most likely to be stopped for minor traffic infractions. Heck, car dealers & finance companies have a whole industry of repo agents out to deal with this. Finally, what do you do about people who do get the ticket in the mail, and just ignore it? No money collected there! Maybe the government could set up a whole bunch of bill collectors to seek out these people, and try to make them pay – how successful would that be? (Just ask any mother how it waits for them to collect court-ordered child support!) This would work only for the legitimate, gainfully-employed, taxpaying, voting citizens – they would be the ones to actually respond, and pay the fine. And the fine would have to be much higher, to cover for all the dirtbags out there who can’t be reached or don’t pay. And they are the ones most likely to be stopped (or videoed) doing traffic offenses. So a system that punishes the mostly law-abiding, voting citizens, and lets the dirtbags get off scot-free. How long would people put up with that? Probably only until the next election cycle, when they could throw out the idiot politicians who inflicted it upon them. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/25 "2015-07-29T03:24:26Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Not here in Minnesota, they aren’t. > Our Supreme Court has protected the citizens from this predatory nonsense. This was a response to the 6th amendment being quoted, which AFAICT, offers no protection from speed cameras and the like. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > And the whole idea is seriously unworkable. Yes, the OP’s scenario is unworkable and unnecessary. I think we all agree on that. The broader issue makes sense however. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > XT already touched on the idea of the problems (and expense) of storing the videos. And indexing & cataloging them. (That’s one of the problems delaying implementation of body cameras for police here – the city council is trying to figure out how to pay for all that.) No, it’s not really. First, camera tickets pay for themselves unlike body cameras. The bigger issue with body cameras is privacy and redaction issues. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > And this is just the digital storage space needed. Haven’t even got into the costs of supplying copies to any person who requests it (public information, you know). Then Plus lawyers who subpoena a copy. Or copies of all videos taken by that cop, to prove that he selectively stops minorities. Data storage is ridiculously cheap. You can get terabytes of data storage for free across a few platforms. This is not really a concern, and neither is sending video to lawyers. They already do this regularly with dash cams on police cars. Furthermore, almost no one hires a lawyer for a traffic ticket. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Then “to the registered owner of the car” – do you realize how many cars are not properly registered? People with legal problems commonly buy cheap used vehicles, and then fail to send in the changed registration, just driving the car using the previous owner’s registration. So the tickets would just go to the previous owner, who no longer has anything to do with the car (but has to take time & effort to prove that in court). That alone could fill a court docket. To say nothing of stolen vehicles. Again, all of these things are done already. DC collects tens of millions of dollars from cameras, allowing them (in theory) to more effectively and efficiently utilize resources. They ticket people with cameras, and surprisingly, the sky has not fallen in. Not to mention that stolen vehicles, drunk drivers, and high speed chases would not be subject to such enforcement. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Then “just send the ticket in the mail” – again, how often is the address on file at the Department of Motor Vehicles the current mailing address? People move, and notifying the DMV of a new address isn’t something they often think about. And moving without any forwarding address is especially common among the class of people most likely to be stopped for minor traffic infractions. Heck, car dealers & finance companies have a whole industry of repo agents out to deal with this. And? This is a cost-benefit issue, and many cities have smartly realized many traffic stops are not an efficient use of resources. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Finally, what do you do about people who do get the ticket in the mail, and just ignore it? No money collected there! Maybe the government could set up a whole bunch of bill collectors to seek out these people, and try to make them pay – how successful would that be? (Just ask any mother how it waits for them to collect court-ordered child support!) They boot the car, put a lien on your property or tax refund, or do a number of other things. This is, again, not really an issue under a more stringent regime anymore than it is now. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > This would work only for the legitimate, gainfully-employed, taxpaying, voting citizens – they would be the ones to actually respond, and pay the fine. And the fine would have to be much higher, to cover for all the dirtbags out there who can’t be reached or don’t pay. And they are the ones most likely to be stopped (or videoed) doing traffic offenses. Commonsense and actually real world data proves you are wrong. Moreover, “dirtbags” aren’t compelled to follow the rules now, and in many cases, locking them up only uses up resources that can be better spent elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/26 "2015-07-29T03:38:32Z")
I don’t see any reason to pull over a car for a minor speeding violation if you can get a picture of the driver. The same goes for other minor violations such as failing to signal a turn. These are just excuses to pull over a car search for some other violation of law that they wouldn’t be able to look for otherwise. If the car has done something dangerous then it’s reasonable to pull it over and make sure the driver isn’t intoxicated or otherwise impaired or ineligible to drive. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/27 "2015-07-29T04:01:43Z")
It sounds like a good way to increase revenue off the backs of reasonable people doing reasonable things. That’s about all I can say about it. (But I think that “everyone else was doing it” should be an actual, legitimate defense. Actions are the most honest form of voting and they should be treated like it.) ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/28 "2015-07-29T04:27:52Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t see any reason to pull over a car for a minor speeding violation if you can get a picture of the driver. The same goes for other minor violations such as failing to signal a turn. These are just excuses to pull over a car search for some other violation of law that they wouldn’t be able to look for otherwise. If the car has done something dangerous then it’s reasonable to pull it over and make sure the driver isn’t intoxicated or otherwise impaired or ineligible to drive. The thing is - a good proportion of the time, a minor offense hides some larger offenses. As I’ve learned watching British traffic cop shows - The same person that doesn’t wear a belt if more likely to not have the legally required insurance. The person that runs a red light is more likely to have been drinking. So there are very real world benefits to on the spot stops. Not to mention - the best and most effective time to correct a “bad” behaviour is when it occurs - not to separate the behaviour and the punishment. This wouldn’t apply in all instances (eg deliberately speeding) - but I could see it having major benefits for something like rolling stops, failure to indicate, failure to keep left (right) on the motorway, tailgating and a whole heap of similar behaviours ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/29 "2015-07-29T11:33:33Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > The thing is - a good proportion of the time, a minor offense hides some larger offenses. Where does this line of thinking stop? It’s the same bad rationale for stop and frisk in NY. “Shaking the tree” is always gonna lead to more crimes being exposed, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the costs outweigh the benefits. For example, real world budget constraints in some areas lead to the fact that almost half of all murders go unsolved. Frequent stops make many people in the community distrust cops. That’s not even getting to the issue of traffic stops where something goes bad like when a cop gets hit by a passing motorist, or inexplicably decides to arrest someone for “disrespect”, or decides not to ticket a pretty lady. The fact is that introducing humans to these minor situations costs more and introduces biases and ineffiencies. The fact is that in the vast majority of cases, the “larger” crime you’d find is drug or gun possession. The benefits of taking drugs or guns off the street at the costs it currently takes to do so is debateable in most cases. More importantly, this power is usually exercised by cops to put certain groups under constant surveillance, and it needs to stop in its current form. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/30 "2015-07-29T11:34:56Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > The thing is - a good proportion of the time, a minor offense hides some larger offenses. So what? No visible offense is the best way to hide all other offenses. So by your logic we should pull people over randomly because there might be evidence of other crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/31 "2015-07-29T12:58:10Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So what? No visible offense is the best way to hide all other offenses. So by your logic we should pull people over randomly because there might be evidence of other crimes. Isn’t that kinda the point of drunk-driving checkpoints? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/32 "2015-07-29T13:23:42Z")
Here in Peru, one municipality put lots of traffic cam and uncredibly low max speeds (50 kph in four-lane divided avenues) and of course it racked up tickets. Taxi drivers would most of the time not take you there (taxis can do that in Peru) Most people didn’t even try to defend themselves until a congresswoman fought it and found out the camera was terribly miscalibrated. Soon the system was scaled back. Do we really want a system were every time we drive at 8 **1** you get a ticket charged to your credit card? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/33 "2015-07-29T15:42:59Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > I have never had a problem with traffic stops; has anyone here? While sometimes I get a traffic ticket, the law enforcement officers have always acted professionally while I have always acknowledged their authority/deferred to them. Me either. Let me guess: You’re white? > [@brickbacon](#): > > Commonsense and actually real world data proves you are wrong. Moreover, “dirtbags” aren’t compelled to follow the rules now, and in many cases, locking them up only uses up resources that can be better spent elsewhere. My personal experience tells me you can safely ignore red light camera tickets that come in the mail. A state senator got on TV and told me to. 5 years later and I still haven’t paid it. I got a letter from a lawyer 4000 miles away once and ignored that, too. Robots cannot legitimately police humans. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/34 "2015-07-29T16:48:50Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So by your logic we should pull people over randomly because there might be evidence of other crimes. :mad: He didn’t say that at all nor infer it. The OP contends that there is some kind of epidemic of tragedies during traffic stops. There isn’t. Millions of police/citizen contact every day and rarely does something happen. And when it does it almost always is initiated by the citizen. Nothing needs to be done, but if it did changing the manner of enforcement would not be the answer. You send legislators to your state capitol who write laws, then you get pissed off when those laws are enforced when the fact remains that traffic stops are a major tool to apprehend bigger fish. The majority of people I’ve arrested on warrants were people I would not have had contact with had they not committed a traffic violation. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/35 "2015-07-29T17:17:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Isn’t that kinda the point of drunk-driving checkpoints? Depends what state you live in. On our little island those aren’t allowed. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/36 "2015-07-29T17:29:14Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > My personal experience tells me you can safely ignore red light camera tickets that come in the mail. A state senator got on TV and told me to. 5 years later and I still haven’t paid it. I got a letter from a lawyer 4000 miles away once and ignored that, too. Robots cannot legitimately police humans. You can safely ignore tickets written by a cop as well. That is until you need something from the state like a registration renewal or something like that. Even if compliance is lower, the state still probably comes out ahead since robots essentially work for free. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/37 "2015-07-29T17:45:08Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > The OP contends that there is some kind of epidemic of tragedies during traffic stops. > > There isn’t. Of course there is. There isn’t a Eric Garner everyday, but there are egregious violations and inequities on a regular basis. That’s the larger tragedy. That fact that many people’s interactions with a cop are largely negative makes it harder to solve crimes, and erodes the respect people have for cops for better or worse.na recent poll I saw stated a near majority do not trust police to be fair and just. That is a huge problem that is exacerbated by misconduct (perceived or otherwise) during traffic stops. > [@pkbites](#): > > Millions of police/citizen contact every day and rarely does something happen. And when it does it almost always is initiated by the citizen. Do you have a cite for that assertion? > [@pkbites](#): > > You send legislators to your state capitol who write laws, then you get pissed off when those laws are enforced when the fact remains that traffic stops are a major tool to apprehend bigger fish. The majority of people I’ve arrested on warrants were people I would not have had contact with had they not committed a traffic violation. But that is a direct result of the system being set up for you to merely stumble upon these people during traffic stops, not an inherent issue with catching criminals. Bounty hunters routinely catch bad guys without having to pull people over hoping to get lucky. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/38 "2015-07-29T18:13:59Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Do you have a cite for that assertion? There are 800K+ police in the U.S… Each making several contacts per day. By your idiotic assertion there would be millions of people getting shot every day. > [@brickbacon](#): > > But that is a direct result of the system being set up for you to merely stumble upon these people during traffic stops, not an inherent issue with catching criminals. Bounty hunters routinely catch bad guys without having to pull people over hoping to get lucky. A “bounty hunter” (:rolleyes: ) concentrates on one subject and may take weeks to get that one subject. It was determined decades ago that having police hunt for one specific person was a massive expense and an inefficient use of resources. This is why only the most dangerous of subjects have concentrated attempts to be found. Back to the OP, this contention that somehow police uses of force are the result of officer mistakes or misconduct is absolute nonsense. Proper use of force is reactionary. The fingers are being pointed at the wrong people. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/39 "2015-07-29T19:29:29Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > There are 800K+ police in the U.S… Each making several contacts per day. By your idiotic assertion there would be millions of people getting shot every day. Is it as idiotic as your lack of reason comprehension? You said: > [@](#): > > Millions of police/citizen contact every day and rarely does something happen. And when it does it almost always is initiated by the citizen. Where is your cite that such encounters are “almost always imitated by the citizen”? > [@pkbites](#): > > A “bounty hunter” (:rolleyes: ) concentrates on one subject and may take weeks to get that one subject. It was determined decades ago that having police hunt for one specific person was a massive expense and an inefficient use of resources. This is why only the most dangerous of subjects have concentrated attempts to be found. I am not suggesting cops become bouny hunters. I am saying that there is more than one way to capture a criminal other than hoping you randomly pull one over because he is speeding. > [@pkbites](#): > > Back to the OP, this contention that somehow police uses of force are the result of officer mistakes or misconduct is absolute nonsense. Proper use of force is reactionary. The fingers are being pointed at the wrong people. So why does almost half the population not trust police to do their jobs properly? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395/40 "2015-07-29T19:39:54Z")
Because half the of population is below average intelligence and haven’t thought the issue through for more than a moment for any given “incident”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-use-technology-to-end-traffic-stops/726395.md?page=3)