Because most people think that cops have to tell the gospel truth.
“You have to come with me,” is typical.
Of course, if you are a loudmouth, vulgar, especially STUPID drunk, cops will tell you whatever they have to, to bring the situation under control.
~VOW
True, but Municipalities can have a MM under state law as far up as an M-1 for thier Ordinances, then you may get nailed, depending on where you get cited.
What a strange thing to say, of course I understand that to implement a policy costs money, but a system to record if a verbal warning has been issued to a driver doesn’t seem especially difficult or expensive to add to police systems which already record other information about traffic stops and police contact with the public.
A record is made when a ticket is issued, how hard would it be for an extra tick box to be added to the form stating that a verbal warning was issued instead of a fine or penalty points, or even a system for the officer to tell his comms operator by radio that he has stopped someone, issued advice and warning and a record made against the numberplate in a database to that effect?
In the cost-benefit analysis it seems to be a relatively simple and extremely useful procedure to implement and would be helpful in the whole ‘hearts and minds’ relationship between police and the public. I imagine the vast majority of cops would prefer issuing a verbal warning for a first offence rather than issuing a ticket. But for that to be effective they need to know if the person they’re talking to has had a warning before.
If you want to be pedantic you can read that as ‘I don’t understand why such an obviously useful system is too costly or complicated to implement’.
That’s a potentially interesting thread in itself (“When is it OK for a cop to lie?”), we rightly expect police to be honest and law-abiding themselves but they’re going to have to dishonest on occassion to do their job effectively. I suppose it depends on the nature of the lie and why it’s being told.
But then policing is a human enterprise on both sides and like anything involving humans its a grey area.
Wow, a street that toggles between being a two-way street and a one-way street depending on the time of day? That just sounds like a bad idea all around.
Pedantic it may be (I’ve been called worse), but you’re now saying that you don’t understand why the costs seem to outweigh the benefits. That’s not what you said before.
Some streets in DC do that. Yes, I got stopped for turning onto one of those roads after the evening direction switch.
I can see so many issues with that.
“Hmm, is it Sunday or Monday? Car clock says it’s 4:30 but did I ever switch this one for DST?”
Any road signs that require drivers to keep track of multiple variables and do math in order to determine the current traffic laws are a bad, bad idea. Plus it’s discriminatory against people who are poor and have broken or stolen car stereos. How are they supposed to know what time it is if they don’t have some fancy electronic device to tell them? And also against the unemployed - who can remember what day of the week it is when the days don’t matter? 
Well I said that I didn’t understand why such a system would be to complicated and/or expensive to implement which is another way of saying that I think the benefits to such a system would outweigh (what I perceive) to be the costs of implementing it.
But I think we’re talking past each other here, I’m perfectly willing to be corrected as to why I’m wrong in assuming it wouldn’t be a particularly difficult procedure to put in place, especially as it would be an adjunct to or extension of already existing systems which are recording similar data already. But when I’ve brought it up in real life I’ve been told its not feasible and have never been given any particularly compelling reason why.
Another situation caused by MONEY.
If traffic volume increases over time, the typical solution is to build another highway, or add lanes to the existing one. In built-up areas of high property values and/or historical districts, either of those two choices is impossible.
By studying the traffic flow volumes over time, engineers can see if peak volumes can be channeled over existing streets and roads. Thus, a solution of making a two-way street temporarily one-way during “rush hour” is workable. Not perfect, but workable. The direction will usually change during the opposite rush hour period.
There are overhead signs that are above each lane, in each direction, with signalization indicating if a street lane is one way or two way.
This means, for instance, all lanes for the East-bound travel will have some green marking, like an arrow, in lights. The marking going in the opposite direction would be a red “X” also in lights.
You’ll have a signal controller box which will handle the lighting, just like the signals at an intersection.
Should you appear at a cross-street, you can look in each direction and see green arrows or red "X"s, indicating which way you should turn.
Yes, it’s confusing. And yes, people from out-of-town will be upset and probably quite pissed off. Folks who are on auto-pilot may make a turn and then be faced with a tunnel of red "X"s and think, “Oh, shit!”
The folks who are commuting are happy they aren’t sidelined by construction.
The tax payers are delighted the politicians aren’t trying to pass yet ANOTHER bond measure to finance new highways.
~VOW
Once you are arrested, a cop can tell you anything, and swear to it, if he feels like it.
We have one street like that. It’s a quiet residential street that really doesn’t go anywhere. But it can be used as part of a bypass of a major road which gets backed up for short periods of the day. It’s used as a preventative measure to keep the street from becoming a major through way during those short periods. Its not designed to be.
That is false. Police officers are able to lie in certain situations but there are many strict limits.
Totally not sure. Last time I got a warning was when I ran a red light. TX DPS car was in front in the left turn lane as I ran it. He lit up when his left turn light went green and puled out to follow me.
Here’s conversation:
Do you know why I stopped you?
Yeah
You disregarded that red light.
No, I didn’t disregard it. I observed the situation carefully, weighed my options, and made a deliberate choice.
He ran me for warrants and came back with a form that looked just like a ticket, but was marked “warning”.
These things might be recorded but it does not seem so. I’m just glad it was DPS. Houston Police would likely have been just as chill. Harris County cops are a mixed bag. and Southside Place or Bellaire? May the gods favor you.
You are right. Every so often this comes up in a thread, and I contribute this same comment. :smack: one day I’ll learn…
Would there be any problem with lying in the scenario above, telling someone you’ve stopped for speeding that there is a record that they have been spoken to and if it happens again the offence will be taken further when no such record has been made?
Well, 50 sets of laws right? But I certainly can’t think of any crime it would constitute or civil cause of action. Lying in general just isn’t illegal, unless it’s part of some actual crime, like fraud, perjury, or obstruction of justice. Since the cop gets no benefit and the driver isn’t harmed, finding a traditional crime is going to be really hard. The same is true for a civil cause of action - usually the damages relate to actual damages, no damages - no cause. So, unless a state has specific laws regarding officials making false statements in an official capacity, I doubt that that particular hypo could result in any type of successful action.
In Toronto the police can “card” you, meaning they stop you and write notes on a card about you even if you aren’t arrested. The information is kept.
Several studies have been done demonstrating the “Carding” system is used almost entirely against visible minorities, in spite of which it continues, so it’s kind of gross.
Did a search, http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/News/2010/06/24/34-Agencies-Purchase-Spillman-Software-In-1Q.aspx Note the June 2010 date.
Looks like you can be expected to be recorded.
I did a ride-along with CHP (California Highway Patrol) last year. Most of their work was investigating possible DUIs. A lot of times they’d pull a guy over for a traffic violation, ask a couple questions, run his license, take a quick look at their eyes (informal nystigmus test), and if they didn’t appear under the influence, they’d let 'em go with a warning.
The cops would make a quick note in their log - they had to note down everything they were doing for every period of time. So it’d be lots of stuff like “2200-2230, patrolled Main Street. 2230-2235, made traffic stop resulting in warning. 2235-2245, patrolled 8th Street” etc. They’d note the license plate number of anyone they pulled over in the log; don’t think they actually logged the identity of the person unless the stop turned into more than a verbal warning. Of course, they name/license number of the person would be kept in whatever computer system they use to run it, no idea if thats permanently recorded anywhere.