Do traffic enforcement cops cause more trouble than they solve?

Great Debates
1

I was driving home today, and I had to tromp on the brakes. Why? Because the 10 cars in front of me all did. They saw a cop, and immediately panic braked to try to avoid getting tickets. Ironically, the cop wasn’t doing anything as far as traffic enforcement.

Everyone is conditioned to pretend to be the safe driver when they see a cop. The entire highway may be going 75, perfectly spaced, just going about their business, and the mere sight of a cop causes immediate and sometimes violent braking, and distracts attention away from the road while you’re looking to see whether you got busted or not. In the meantime, everyone behind you is trying not to hit each other after the panic stop the guy in front just pulled.

So, I postulate that traffic cops cause trouble rather than prevent it. Here’s why:

  1. Everyone is breaking the law, and the cops know it, so why do they create hazards where there weren’t previously any just to make people slow down until they’re out of sight? Nobody’s fooled, so nothing is truly accomplished except hindering the flow of traffic, sometimes for miles.

2)The traffic jams created are an extraordinarily dangerous situation, where everyone is nervous, tired, or upset.

3)Cops are paid with public monies, and if nobody wants them there busting people for tickets, why are they still there doing it? OK, that’s not really one of the reasons, but I wanted to slip that in.

4)Is the ticket money worth the potential for severe accidents, wage losses, worker’s compensation, death benefits, etc.?

To my way of thinking, they’re more a road hazard than anything else. There’s no feeling worse than looking in your rear-view mirror when you see a cop only to see it fill up with a car that isn’t slowing down quickly enough, except for the sick feeling you get in your stomach when you don’t know whether you’re gonna be the random ticket victim of the day.

Debate.

2

Not everyone is breaking the law. The cops aren’t “making” people slow down. People are choosing to do that. Should the cops also break the law and speed? That’s silly.

I don’t see how this is different from #1.

You answered your own question. Plus, you don’t know that nobody wants them there. If there were no cops, people would be clammering for them to make a showing.

You need to demostrate that if there were no cops, there would be fewer accidents than now. I think that would be hard to do.
Having said that, let me say that there are few things I hate more than people going ridiculously slow just because they see a cop. They seem to think they need to go UNDER the speed limit, even in the left lane.

3

Laws that are not going to be obeyed should not be enacted in the first place/should be repealed. They only serve to (a) teach disrespect for the law in general, and (b) allow the police to arbitrarily enforce said law. If everyone’s breaking it, the police can choose to only bust those they don’t like for breaking said law.

Sua

4

Which confirms your OP is ridiculous. Even when not doing traffic patrol the police are out in public. Would you suggest they not be?
How is an officer to get from one point to another without being in traffic himself??? How about patroling for accident victims or stranded motorists? Or patroling looking for crimes?
If he was on the side of the road, perhaps he was writting a report, taking down information from his dispatcher, etc…
This cop, by your own statement, wasn’t doing traffic enforcement, yet you seem to blame him for simply being there.
If traffic laws were totally not enforced, there would still be cops out in public, and people would still brake when they see one.
What do you suggest? All cops have unmarked, undetectable cars? Turn invisible?

Blame the other dorks on the road for the traffic jam. Not the police.

5

I gotta say that the only thing keeping me from driving 100 mph on the freeway is the fear that a cop might be around the corner. And even that doesn’t stop me 100% of the time.:slight_smile:

6

**

Are you sure it was a traffic cop? Not every marked vehicle is assigned to traffic duty.

**

I want them there busting people for tickets. Traffic cops are also on the lookout for erratic drivers, pull over commercial vehicles who unsafely loaded cargo, and offer traffic control in event of an accident.

Welcome to rush hour traffic whether there’s a cop nearby or not. I have noticed people braking for no real reason other then they spy a cop. However I don’t really think they cause more problems then they solve.

Marc

7

I think his point is that because we anticipate those dangerous trafic cops, that any cop we drivers see just might be a traffic cop, so even if it isn’t, we react as if it were.
But, really Airman, no traffic cops? So, if I feel like it’s safe to drive 55 through the residential neighborhood marked 30, then that’s just fine and safe?

As someone already mentioned, I think you’d be hard pressed to assert a case that the roads would be safer without police.

8

I think the problem is that speed limits are too low on many highways. If the limit is absurdly low it will create big disparities in the speeds of the cars. There are 50 MPH limits around here that create havoc. One motorcycle cop at 8 AM in that area can cause gridlock.

9

Once again, it’s unclear whether the OP is annoyed about a police officer wielding a radar gun in the median during rush hour vs. a cop who is in traffic heading someplace for one of any number of reasons. If it’s the latter, I suspect rampant paranoia is involved in any outbreaks of mass braking. In my experience officers not on specific traffic patrol don’t seem eager to pull over random drivers when most are exceeding the limit by a bit. Too much trouble and potential risk on a crowded highway.

Might just be more relaxing to ease up on the leadfoot a bit. Save gas, and all that.

10

I think it’s a necessary evil, because without any enforcement of the laws, things would quickly degrade into anarchy on the road.

Warning - kind of a sidetrack:

I’ll tell you what does chap my hide, though - when cops are directly and unneccesarily causing a hazard. Believe me, I’ve seen it more times than I would like. For example, I was recently heading home fairly late at night down the main boulevard where I live, when all of a sudden I saw two patrol cars STOPPED in the middle of the road, side by side, blocking both lanes of traffic, but without their lights on. I had to hit the brakes and come to a stop, and my first thought was that some emergency had happened. But as I pulled up behind them, they immediately began driving forward. Apparently, they were sitting there in the middle of the road CHATTING. They both proceeded to swerve rather recklessly into a left turn lane (where I happened to be going as well), turned left, made a precarious U-turn in the middle of the block, and proceeded back the other way. They didn’t really seem to be in a hurry; just driving like crap for no particular reason.

In another city, I’ve seen cops doing “burnouts” in a parking lot.:rolleyes:

11

Then I think you need to travel up and down I-270 in Maryland sometime. The Montgomery county cops are always speeding. The limit is 55, which is low IMHO, but I see cops all the time speeding, and I’m talking 70-80+.

I’ve also noticed an utter lack of respect for the traffic laws, doing U-Turns, running red lights, “California Stops” and all sorts of things that would get you a nice big fine otherwise. I know that if the cops have no respect for the traffic laws then why should I? Well I do, but only because I don’t want to get hurt not because of some law.

How about Europe? I’ve driven in both Ireland and England and in the three weeks or so I spent there I saw all of one cop doing traffic duty. While people speed there just like they do here they don’t seem to have as big of a problem with stuid drivers.

Quite frankly if the cops want to do something they should enforce the laws that really endanger people. Yes people speed, but if the majority of people are going 70 then let them go. I don’t see them puling over the people who are weaving in and out of traffic, or jumping from the HOV lane to the normal lanes when they shouldn’t be there, or the people who pull across 3-4 lanes to get off the exit they almost missed. They do however like to sit on the otherside of traffic and pull over speeders when there are 10-15 cars moving along, instead of grabbing the people in traffic doing stupid stuff.

No one said no cops, but at least have them in places they will do some good. No, 55 in a 30 is dangerous and this is the type of place the police should look for people. I think that out in the western US they have it better, very low amount of cops on the highways, but once you get into town there is usualy a cop sitting there.

12

Well, here is my take on this. Let us say you are in a BAD neighborhood, with scum & gangbangers everywhere giving your car the 'eye". Then, a police car pulls in behind you, and starts following you. You have never had anything BUT a traffic ticket or two, have commited no CRIMES, but maybe an infraction or 2. So tell me- are you releived that a cop car is behind you, shadowing you, or worried shitless that he might pull you over for some stupid infraction?

I know my hands start sweating, and since I am sorta in Law enforcement myself, I should be less worried. I’m not.

Of course, we do have to have Traffic enforcement. But not by regular cops. I think there should be special motorcycle traffic cops who specialize in traffic enforcement (like “metermaids” and parking tickets). Regular police would never give traffic tickets- would not even be allowed to pull dudes over for infractions (gets rid of “DWB” too). Note I say “infractions” as drunk driving is a real crime, a misdomeaner, and so is certain types of reckless driving. But speeding etc is an “infraction” which really isn’t a “crime” per se. Now, the “traffic police” could be used for emergencies also, they’d have guns & such. In fact, they’d still BE police, just on a special detail or department. In some dept’s, this could be a good way to break in rookies, etc.

Thus, if you saw a patrol car behind you- unless you had been drinking or something- you wouldn’t have to worry about your stupid tail-lite being out or some such crap. You’d feel SAFE with a police car behind you, not worried.

Of course, if you saw a motorcycle cop, you’d know he was out to give tickets.

13

This idea is so stupid it almost deserves a Pit rant.:rolleyes:

Do you have any idea how many people with criminal warrants for their arrest are picked up because of a simple traffic stop? Or how many drunk drivers are caught, not because of erratic driving, but because of having a tail light out or other infraction? Or how many drug holders are busted because of an expired plate? Alot!

Traffic patrol is a very real, very vital part of apprehending real criminals. Telling a police officer that he’s not allowed to enforce
some laws because they’re only minor infractions, or because he’s making some motorist nervous is absurd.

14

Right- and if that police officer sees a criminal violation, he can act on it. Criminal warrents? The time spent wasted writing tickets can be better spent driving to their KNOWN address and just picking them up. In case you didn’t know it, many warrents aren’t served to a criminals KNOWN address as they have such a backlog. In any case, many of such warrents are “unpaid traffic tickets”- and again, let’s concentrate on real crimes, not crap like that.

If a drunk driver isn’t driving like a drunk- why pull him over?

Drug holders busted for outdated registration? We’d be far better off if no one was arrested for simple possession. And, we’d have fewer racist cops (a minority, sure, but…) doing “DWB” stops. Who really cares if someone is in simple “possession” of drugs anyway? I don’t.

Police have used “traffic stops” as a crutch for too long now. Why not arrest some real criminals instead? Hell, in my area, a patrolman could spend his whole day busting drug dealers selling crack right there out in the open.

Infractions should not be Police work, like Code enforcement.

15

When Me and my family were going to north carolina we were goin at most 60 on a 55 mph road. Well the cop saw that we were from georgia and pulled us over telling us that we were going 69. what a Coincidence that at 70 you have to go in.

16

I, too, have seen cops speed. In fact, I have to say that if a cop isn’t passing me, it is probably because he’s going to exit soon.

Unlike most drivers, though, I don’t have much of a qualm about driving faster than a cop. I just go. He knows how fast people drive because he isn’t a cop 24-7. If he’s on the side of the road, though, like a variation of Pavlov’s dog, I slow right the hell down, and not just because the guy in front of me did, too.

Perhaps… if they made a showing for being a nuisance, like dodging lanes, failing to respect that people drive fast on the left (since they are passing), or tailgating, rather than checking for speed demons. These other behaviors are detrimental to traffic flow and increase the possibility of accidents.

pkbites

So is the proper answer: “neither do you”? I’ve been treated roughly well by most cops, but speeding tickets always get me hot under the collar. We’re not talking about pulling someone over who failed to signal a left turn, we’re talking about highway traffic becoming obstructed because of the influence such behavior has on people. Most of us are breaking traffic laws left and right. It is pretty hard to avoid. You don’t always signal or signal soon enough, sometimes people perform rolling stops (which I’ve been ticketed for), and so on. There’s a ton to pay attention to, and that gets people a little extra paranoid whenever a cop is around because they know cops will pull people over just because of the reasons you mention! so they pay less attention to the road and more attention to how they drive. It is insanely counter productive.

If you don’t want drunk drivers, get rid of bars, don’t harass people on the off chance that the guy who didn’t signal is stinking drunk.

Anyway, I think perhaps the OP is a little extreme, but I do agree that speed readings and traffic cops cause people to be in a general state of paranoia around cops. Is it the cops’ fault? Hell no. We shouldn’t have created a society where if you follow a person around for any period of time you’re virtually guaranteed to be able to ticket them for something. That creates an air of harassment, even if 99.99% of cops are truly well-aligned individuals. And that air of harassment means that whenever people see a cop on the highway, they become self-conscious in their driving. Not what you want at 70MPH or 55. Or in a school zone. It is just counterproductive.

17

Well, I’ll tell you what “sorta”. When you actually are a police officer, especially for 19+ years, I’ll bet you then will realize how ridiculous your ideas to tie the hands of street cops are.

I repeat my claim that traffic enforcement is an important part of actually fighting crime. Not to mention it actually does enhance safety on our roads. The OP asks “Do traffic enforcement cops cause more trouble than they solve?” The answer is a resounding NO!

18

OK, some of you brought up residential areas. I wasn’t referring to residential areas, since in residential areas people don’t do 75 MPH in large packs. Once again I say something referring to apples, and I get oranges in response. Do I think it’s acceptable to do 50 in a 25 zone? No. Local residential area speed limit enforcement is fine with me. So you got me on that nitpick.

I’m not annoyed about cops going to and fro, although now that you mention it, isn’t there some sort of rule that they’re only permitted to speed with their lights on? Just wondering, because I have never, ever seen a police officer follow the speed limit under any circumstances.

I agree that rampant paranoia is the catalyst for the mass brakings, Jack, but that’s small consolation I’m sure to the people who get rear-ended because a cop was “slowing traffic down” for the next quarter mile or so until they’re out of sight.

“Ease up on the leadfoot a bit”? If I’m following the traffic flow, and it’s at 75 MPH, and everyone is safely spaced out, what is the point of slowing it down by scaring the piss out of everyone by sitting in the median with a radar gun, especially if, as you say, they have no intention of pulling anyone over? And if they do pull anyone over, who will it be? The random unlucky guy of the day, that’s who.

That’s stupid. That’s a waste of manpower and a hazard for drivers, and a waste of time and money for the people who get nailed.

19

It is interesting to see the reaction of people. When a law does not apply to them then it should be enforced to the letter and no punishment is bad enough for those who break it. But when the law applies to oneself then all sorts of questions come up about the fairness of the law, whether it is a wise law, whether it is a useful law, whther we have to be understanding with those who break it, etc.

Talk about bank robbers and everyone here says they deserve their punishment and much more. But talk about drugs or pirating music and the tune changes. These are questionable laws.

Talk about foreigners in the USA, legal or illegal, and the least bureaucratic infraction is enough for them to deserve the worst punishments, whether the infraction was their responsibility or not. Talk about traffic laws and the the tune changes again. Now we can question whether the law does any good.

It seems some people, when considering what the punishment should be for breaking a law, the first question they ask themselves is “How likely am I to get caught breaking it?”.

20

Ya know, if folks didn’t combine the “small stuff” like, say, going ten mph over the speed limit, with the “jerkwad stuff” like, say, tailgating, changing lanes without signaling, cutting off others, and the like, there would probably be less need for traffic cops.

If society were to act like a bunch of responsible people, we’d probably be treated like a bunch of responsible people.