Georgia Cop Issues 800 Tickets To Drivers Texting At Red Lights 1440
McGruber writes "WSB-Television, Atlanta, tells us that Gwinnett County police officer Jessie Myers has issued more tickets for texting and driving than any other officer in the state. Officer Myers said he sees most people typing away on their phones while waiting at red lights. 'Most people think they're safe there,' Myers said. However, he said it's still illegal. 'At a red light, you're still driving, according to the law. You're on a roadway, behind (the wheel of) a car, in charge of it, with a vehicle in drive,' Myers said. Myers also tickets drivers using navigation apps. One driver said she was just using her phone's GPS. The law forbids that and Myers issued her a ticket. "That's right. You can't use your navigation while driving. Unless it is a GPS-only device, such as Garmin or Tom Tom, something that is not used as a communication device,' Myers said."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in the US where almost everyone is driving an automatic, this is dangerous. If the foot slips off the brake for any reason, the car will propel itself forward while the driver likely has no hands on the steering wheel, and is distracted by their phone. You might think that scenario unlikely, but if someone even bumps the back of your car gently, your foot is going to come off the brake and you are now going into the car in front of you - one that might be driving through the intersection at speed.
In some other countries where most have manual transmissions, drivers are trained to place the car into neutral and engage the handbrake at a red light. That at least makes this a somewhat safer practice.
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your foot is on the brake so poorly that it's going to get dislodged, having your hands on the wheel isn't going to do you much good. It's not dangerous to text at red lights. Annoying to drivers behind you yes, dangerous, no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In some other countries where most have manual transmissions, drivers are trained to place the car into neutral and engage the handbrake at a red light. That at least makes this a somewhat safer practice.
You're nuts. I've been driving a manual transmission for my entire life and was *never* told to put the hand brake on at a red light. In fact, I was specifically told not to, because it takes time to disengage and can impede traffic if you have it on when the signal turns to green. As for putting it in neutral, usually not. I leave it in 1st, with my foot on the clutch. That's a safer stall than leaving the car not in gear at all: if my foot slips from the clutch, the car will lurch and stall completely, an
Re: (Score:3)
You're nuts. I've been driving a manual transmission for my entire life and was *never* told to put the hand brake on at a red light. In fact, I was specifically told not to,
You're told to in England. They even want to put the handbrake on at every stop in a 3 point turn. That was years ago though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:5, Informative)
Manual transmission here in Ireland. The law is that when you are stopped at a red light (or for extended periods of time) that you must engage the handbrake and disengage the gears (neutral).
You can keep an eye on the lights as to when it's about to go green for you but in the half a second that it takes to put the car into first, is it really that bad compared to clumsy feet drivers?
Before you go calculating how many half seconds you could save per traffic light, consider that in the UK the amber light is illuminated whilst the red is in order to indicate to the driver that the lights will soon change to green.
Re: (Score:3)
if someone even bumps the back of your car gently, your foot is going to come off the brake
You sure have some strange reflexes. I've been bumped once, and my foot went on the brake harder.
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, enforcing the law is not stupid, having a stupid law is stupid.
Seriously folks, this is exactly why we have such terrible government at every level. Voters blame the officer who is actually doing his job to follow the law rather than the morons who write and pass bad laws.
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they blame the officer is there's a metric tonne of laws that aren't regularly enforced against the general public that if they were, people would be irate. Its called officer discretion, and the average person receives it every time they don't do a 1 second stop at a stop sign, drive 67 in a 65 etc. People think they're benevolent and the strict enforcement of the law should only apply to DUI, druggies and drug dealers etc, and they should only be given a warning for whatever laws they break.
This is part of the toolset of the LEO. Politicians and traffic engineers purposefully make the law difficult to not break (IE low speed limits) and gives the officer the ability to pretty much pull anyone over at any time. They don't because they're only after bad guys like drug dealers, so soccer moms get warnings or officer discretion all day long. Then you get instances like in the OP where the law is equally applied, and people throw hissy fits about how its BS.
We live in a very strict set of laws, and the reason 95% of us aren't pulled over every trip to work is officer discretion.
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:4, Insightful)
So hold those drafting the metric tonne of laws responsible instead. You may be one of the few Americans that bother to vote so this isn't aimed at you, but to all those others I suggest getting off your arse, vote, and follow through by bothering those you voted for on issues that are pissing you off.
That's a very third world authoritarian way to have things and should be punished at the ballot box. In many places such a harsh environment is there so that there is always a reason to pay bribes to those that enforce or draft the laws.
Re:Officer dickhead is a dickhead. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, I nearly caused my very own accident because I was trying to confirm my location using Google maps on my phone. I've since wise'd up and learned that I should either pull over and check it, or leave it very well alone. Nowadays, I turn on voice to it gives me the directions and then turn off the screen. I'm only driving 1 & 1/2 years and though I've passed my test, I'm still learning.
You should have nothing going on IN your car that takes your mind off what's happening OUT of your car.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not hard to make the law exactly how they want it. The law is usually crafted by think tank organizations who's sole purpose is to lobby and craft legislation. The reason its not "perfect" to you, is its not made to suit you. Its made to suit the lobbyist group. An example is gun legislation, is almost always crafted by a group like HCI (handgun control Inc). Obamacare was crafted by lobbyist groups, read about it here http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/from-architect-to-lobbyists-obamacare-desi [theblaze.com]
A law for everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Good thing that the in-vehicle computers that cops use to check someone's plates isn't covered by this.
Hypocrites. Who will write them tickets?
Re:A law for everyone (Score:4)
Police are almost always exempt from most traffic laws. If they do break traffic laws, its usually intra-department disciplinary action. Though one cop was driving 135 on the interstate, for no official reason (he stated he wanted to test drive the car to its limits). He got fired for that. Little did he know one of the guys he blew by doing 135 was the police commissioner.
Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark while stopped at traffic lights.
(I live in Cobb County, 2 counties over from Gwinnett and have received a ticket for "texting while driving")
You're not legally driving if your car is in park.
And I beat the ticket by forcing the cop to produce the dashcam footage. You could clearly see my reverse lights light up as the car was shifted from Park to Drive.
In fact, having a car in Park is one of the few exceptions written into the law.
Re:Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhmmm, I don't have P on my gear shift.
Does having P on your gearshift give you an extra break with the law?
Re: Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:5, Funny)
I don't P on my handbrake either
(yeah lame, but I really couldn't help myself)
Re: (Score:3)
No, you get hit with urinating in public as well.
Re:Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possible to get cited for drunk driving even if the car is turned off in a parking lot. It's more about being the person in control of the vehicle than it is about "driving"
Re: (Score:3)
You're not legally driving if your car is in park.
No, you're parked. In a traffic lane. Impeding the flow of traffic is against the law, too.
In fact, having a car in Park is one of the few exceptions written into the law.
Yes, because there are other laws to cover parking in traffic. If you want to be texting, then pull over, FFS.
The map one was prickish. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to get into the rest of it, I'm a cyclist and it amazes me how many people I notice have a phone to their ear while driving, especially in the daytime. Those are bad drivers. Texters are worse, so yeah, do it, but it's more sporting to get them in motion instead of at a stoplight, less they can argue against as well. Getting them at stoplights almost seems lazy.
Leave the map app guys alone. If it's displaying a map I don't care if it's dedicated or not, it's displaying a map, infact the phone could be the safer device, it's maps are updated constantly and they're more likely to have correct directions based on that tidbit, at least in cities like I live in where the map is constatly changing.
Re:The map one was prickish. (Score:5, Interesting)
What, so now the cop has to see which app on your tiny screen you were using when he saw you? If it's colored a certain way, it's OK, but if it's colored differently it's not OK? And if I am pulled over texting-while-driving, do I just need a double-click-the-button app to pop up the maps quick so I can tell the cop I was just using a map? I don't disagree with the cop tagging someone for using the map app in that way, because it would be impossible to enforce it any other way.
However, I think a lot of driving laws are stupid "pre-crime" kinds of laws that should be revisited. Speeding, drunk driving, texting, etc., none of those actions actually causes harm. They only increase risks, such as the risk of increased injury in an accident due to higher speeds, or the risk of actually getting into an accident because you're distracted or intoxicated. But the only thing that actually causes harm is an actual accident. If you cause an accident that causes minor injury to another, you should get about five years in jail. If your accident seriously injures another person, you should get 10 years. If your accident takes another person's life, you go to jail for life. If those were the laws, and they were enforced, people might actually think before they try something stupid. That way each person would be responsible for their own actions at all times. If you're on an isolated country road, with no cars visible for miles in any direction, why not drive 120 MPH? If you're in a tight city street, with the potential for pedestrians to pop out in front of you from between parked vehicles, you're risking jail if you don't essentially crawl slowly through the neighborhood. You limit your own behavior because you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.
Of course, that would require people to think and to take responsibility for themselves, two things that most people suck at.
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
A cop doing their job.
There is nothing short of an absolute, death-like issue that you need to be texting at a red light, or anywhere else while driving. Time and time again I've been behind people who were texting, the light turn greens and invariably I, or someone else, has to put on the horn to get them to pay attention to what they're doing as they're holding up traffic.
If you're that narcissistic or ADD that you think you need to be checking every ten seconds, go seek help.
Kudos to the cop enforcing the law.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
A cop doing their job.
...
This strikes me just like the cops back in college that would pull over TAXIS leaving bars in order to ticket the kids leaving the bar with public intoxication. Technically doing their job. Definitely adding incentive to the wrong behavior. It was "safer" to leave certain bars in your own car rather than in a cab ... I kid you not. This type of enforcement is making it "safer" for the texters to do it while driving ... harder for this asshat to catch them.
... and it could get someone hurt/killed. All the while this clown get's his name in the paper though for writing a bunch of tickets to non-violent scofflaws ... adding incentive to stopping minor offenders rather than actual criminals.
The incentive is certainly going to encourage the greater of the two evils
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
This type of enforcement is making it "safer" for the texters to do it while driving ... harder for this asshat to catch them.
Dammit, that's a good point. I always forget about unintended consequences. Ugh!
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the message this sends is "you're less likely to get a ticket if you wait for the green light before you start texting". Sure it may be against the law, but the problem I have with this sort of thing is that the focus is always on the least dangerous behaviour. Just like in my neighbourhood where the cops will stop people speeding on the big street where it's least dangerous while ignoring speeding in the residential area where you can have children crossing at any time. Enforcing the law where
Re: (Score:3)
A cop doing their job.
There is nothing short of an absolute, death-like issue that you need to be texting at a red light, or anywhere else while driving. Time and time again I've been behind people who were texting, the light turn greens and invariably I, or someone else, has to put on the horn to get them to pay attention to what they're doing as they're holding up traffic.
If you're that narcissistic or ADD that you think you need to be checking every ten seconds, go seek help.
Kudos to the cop enforcing the law.
I expected to read a lot of positive comments; I'm surprised how many people are criticizing this officer. I live in Pennsylvania, where (according to a previous poster) it's legal to text while stopped. I'd like to see that changed; I'm constantly infuriated by the time it takes for drivers to realize the light has changed, finish their text, and get moving. Many traffic lights are sensor operated; when there are no cars moving, it truncates the green. As a consequence, ONLY the car that delayed everyone g
as a pedestrian i say great (Score:5, Informative)
As a pedestrian I say great. People shouldn't be texting or checking their phones while driving. While folks might think it's safe at an intersection, I disagree.
I've almost been hit a number of times as drivers inch through a cross walk when they aren't paying attention. Or they turn on red and don't pay attention. It's super dangerous.
Red light / green light (Score:3)
Bravo!
Texting at red lights too often turns into texting at green lights. I really hate sitting through a light cycle because the idiot in front of me hadn't noticed that the light had changed.
We need more cops like that (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes police abuse their position or become oppressive in measures inadvertently. Still as far as texting is concerned I think this should be punished in a more severe manner.
I know I know, people say what's the harm right?!
It only takes one time that you have almost killed someone or yourself due to texting to finally admit you are increasing risk to yourself and others. Texting goes a step beyond the distraction of hands free phones because you are occupying at least one hand and looking elsewhere than what's in front of you.
Over the years I have had several near misses and dangerous situations because of drivers that are texting, holding phones and generally not only preoccupied mentally with the conversation but also physically with no hands on the wheel.
Some texting ass nearly killed a cyclist one day as he slowly drove out of his lane and into a bicycle lane, just a 20cm or so is all it took. He held the steering wheel between his knees and was using his phone with both hands! -Do you think he would have gotten off the hook cause the cyclist didn't wear a helmet?
I know that you can text, stopped at a light (presumably only there) and nothing will happen. Harmless right? until that time that your clutch is raised ever so slightly and you rear into the car behind you or you didn't notice the cyclist creeping from the side, or the motorcyclists between your car and another...
You can imagine the scenarios. It's not about the 10,000 times it went right, it's about the one time it doesn't.
Feel this is unjustified? I welcome you to cycle or operate a two wheel vehicle for a time and see if that changes your mind. Let's remember that there are no such situations in which you must to text when you drive or are operating a vehicle. It's an action you can entirely do without. you can "like this" or comment that witticism later.
At the end of the day this is my life and I can do everything right on the road and still get hurt or worse because of someone else. If it was your life would you accept me texting or possibly putting you in danger? putting your children in danger?
If you can't control yourself ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... you shouldn't be in control of a piece of heavy machinery (in this case an automobile).
Before red-light gadget users argue that they are in control of their habits, ask yourself why you're texting at a red light. It only takes a couple of minutes to remove yourself from the flow of traffic, do the texting, and safely reinsert yourself into the flow of traffic.
Easy pickings (Score:3)
Actually, its much easier and safer for the cop to nail someone at a traffic light than to pull a suspected driver over and approach the vehicle not knowing what's actually going on inside. The texter is usually unaware the cop is there until it's too late. By then, the cop can determine if they are threat and have them dead to rights. Smart policing if you ask me.
Now, the rule on using a phone as a GPS and writing tickets for that? In NJ, it is illegal to operate ANY hand-held electronics while driving...that includes hands free phone use unless the phone is physically mounted in the vehicle. Somebody pointed out that apps like the new Google Maps or Waze are often superior to the in-car alternatives...offer turn by turn directions...and don't require the driver to fumble with it while driving.
Why are these laws in place? Ask the governor whose driver (a trooper) had an accident while operating a mobile device while driving.
Being in "drive" is important? (Score:3)
You're on a roadway, behind (the wheel of) a car, in charge of it, with a vehicle in drive
I'm typically in neutral at a red light, so does that make it OK? Does the gear matter, or is it because you are in the lane rather than on the shoulder? If a stationary car gets into an accident, isn't that always the other driver's fault anyhow?
Keep it up! (Score:3)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Police have a huge amount of discretion in who they write up and for what. He could actually, y'know, work, and catch people posing some threat to those around him; but instead, he'd rather sit at a stop light and give tickets to fish in a barrel - To people at least trying to do the right thing and not text while driving (even if still technically "operating" their car).
So yeah, that still makes him a complete asshole. To all the good cops out there - This guy explains why we loathe you all so much. When you hear about shit like this, a good blanket party would do a world of wonders for your overall PR.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
catch people posing some threat to those around him
How about the people who aren't watching the intersection they're sitting at, so when the light turns green they instinctively hit the gas, rather than looking at the slow-moving pedestrians?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just following orders? Where have I heard that before?
If he sees someone texting while actually driving (sitting there forever and a day with your foot on the brake wondering if the light is broken is not driving), I'm all for him issuing a ticket.
Re: (Score:3)
I get a phone call, Pull to the side of the road on a public street, and take tall call. Am I still driving?
Re: (Score:3)
I get a phone call, Pull to the side of the road on a public street, and take tall call. Am I still driving?
Is it a legal place to park, stop, or stand?
If so, then no, you're golden (I recommend putting it in park for safety's sake). If not, then yes, you're obstructing the flow of traffic.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
So was Hitlers number two guy and the SS (Score:4, Insightful)
but cops can use their police computers to look up licence plates at a red light, or the can be on their police radio while driving at high speed.
Ah yeah, one rule for the cops, one rule for the plebs.
Can I read my paperback novel at the red light? Yep legal, can I drink my coffee and read the ingredients at the lights? yep.
Can I close my eyes and snooze for 30 seconds at the lights?
Stop nanny states making 5000000 rules about our lives, GET LOST govt. Enough rules is enough ok.
Re:So was Hitlers number two guy and the SS (Score:4, Informative)
You forget the fact that the driving test for normal people is a joke. The driving test for cops is not. So unless you want to pass the cop's driving test to able to drive, you're not going to have the same privileges such as speeding, using a computer while driving, shooting while driving, communicating over the radio while driving, intentionally causing accidents, or any other such law enforcement tasks.
Maybe if the driving test for normal people were as stringent as that for the cops, there'd be something. Or, if the driving test for cops in that local jurisdiction was as easy as simply going around a few cones, you'd have a point. But I know the former is untrue anywhere in the states, and I seriously doubt the latter.
I can't believe I'm defending them, but there are arguable issues, and then there's nonsense.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not the job of police to enforce EVERY law. The concept is called "selective enforcement" and result in things like cops issuing warnings, issuing a verbal scolding, or choosing not to cite at all for some things.
One question is often asked at interviews for police work is, "You catch your mother speeding. Do you give her a ticket?"
The proper answer is, "no". Departments don't want people who would give their own mother a speeding ticket. Contrary to popular belief, departments want thinking human beings, not robocops.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not the job of police to enforce EVERY law. The concept is called "selective enforcement" and result in things like cops issuing warnings, issuing a verbal scolding, or choosing not to cite at all for some things.
One question is often asked at interviews for police work is, "You catch your mother speeding. Do you give her a ticket?"
The proper answer is, "no". Departments don't want people who would give their own mother a speeding ticket. Contrary to popular belief, departments want thinking human beings, not robocops.
What's funny about this is that if you were asked this for a job at a corporation, the proper answer would be "yes". So, you are supposed to be willing to sell out you're own mother for capitalism but not if she breaks the law.... :-P
Re:jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not his job to set up at a traffic light explicitly looking for harmless technical violations. He has discretion where he sets up and which traffic violations he focuses on. He's abusing that discretion. That makes him an ass hat.
Makes his chief an ass hat too, for not telling him to go look for actual dangerous behavior.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Informative)
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
I can blame him. Because he uses excuses like these:
'At a red light, you're still driving. according to the law. You're on a roadway, behind (the wheel of) a car, in charge of it, with a vehicle in drive,'
There's a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Assholes like this guy who are more interested in the letter of the law are the reasons why laws get so complicated you need lawyers to interpret them. You can't just write a law that says, "it's illegal to text and drive." You have to define what constitutes driving, and then write an exception for being stopped at a light. Having every law consist of 30 pages of legalize is not in the best interests of society.
Why is texting and driving dangerous? Because every moment you're not looking in front of you, your car is covering a rather large distance. Unexpected things happen in the blink of an eye. If you're not moving, that's not an issue. His actions are not consistent with the spirit of the law. It's very reasonable to blame him.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say this again: Throw out that stupid outdated "United States Constitution" and write a new one. We're way too far into broken hacks on top of hacks in this alpha-quality code to keep running it in production. One of the very large and obvious defects in this code is the complete failure to implement a good process for creating laws.
Every law should have a simple, plain-language English scope statement written at the top as a preamble. Every single bill. That states the goals of the law and the scope. If technically possible, the scope statement should be written originally in Latin and/or Ancient Greek; it is acceptable to write part of it in Latin and/or ancient Greek to solidly clarify certain descriptive portions while referring to the English portions of the law that specify technical concepts too new to translate into Latin and/or Ancient Greek properly.
An English scope statement will leave you with stupid shit like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ending in arguments on whether "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" references the National Guard or the actual individual citizens. A large part of that argument is over whether or not the meaning in 1780 was different from the way we'd interpret this sentence today. That is: a sane, rational, and learned person might generally interpret this to reference the People as a body and thus allow them to have their state raise a military force not under jurisdiction of the Federal Government; however, a sane, rational, and learned person *in* *1780* might correctly read this as that every individual person has the legal right to carry any weapon he wishes.
Latin and Ancient Greek are well-understood dead languages. Sanskrit is also well-understood and dead, but less generally accessible: as little as 50 years ago, Latin and Ancient Greek were both standard core education in America; they still are in some public and many private school systems. A firm working grasp of both Latin and Ancient Greek were necessary to enter top-tier colleges several decades ago. Statements written in these languages have exactly one interpretable meaning, or can be made to have exactly one interpretable meaning; that meaning won't change with linguistic drift over time, as with English, and we won't have to speculate over whether or not a sane, rational person in 1780 meant that each individual should have guns or that the people should be able to raise a non-Federal military force because the specific meaning is right there in clear Greek.
As for actual laws, it should be a 100% bullet-proof legal defense that the law is invalid because it doesn't accomplish its scope. The scope says the law attempts to implement certain measures and for a certain purpose; if either the measure implemented in the part of the law you broke isn't in the scope statement *or* the action you took doesn't fit with the reasoning behind the law (for example: operating your cellphone GPS while parked at a light does NOT pose a danger to others through distracted driving increasing the risk of mis-operating a moving vehicle), the law is not applicable and has no standing.
Remember: The law must satisfy the scope as explained in Latin and Ancient Greek. Any conflict in the English scope statement with these is overruled by these. The Latin and Ancient Greek must not conflict with one another. The Latin and Ancient Greek may be partial clarifications and explanations of the English scope statement, explicitly yielding specific parts of the English scope statement to interpretation. They may even cite that a certain part of the English scope statement cannot be sufficiently explained in Latin or Greek, put bounds on the scope, offer guidance, and yield remaining interpretation as does not run afoul of these bounds and guidance. The full text of the law is in English, but is not valid outside the bounds of this scope.
Are we cool yet?
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's not doing his job.
The job of a police officer is to ensure the smooth and peaceful running of society. Police officers are supposed to use their better judgment to decide if they need to intervene in an unsafe situation. They're not supposed to be walking porcine bureaucrats looking to randomly drain and damage society by mindlessly misapplying draconian rules into incidental situations.
Texting while driving laws were put into place because of the extreme danger of distracted driving. That danger isn't present when parked at a light--you might annoy someone by not moving when the light changes, and you'll obstruct traffic in a non-dangerous manner. We have accepted the danger of people referencing, but not programming, their GPS while driving; we certainly haven't targetted GPS use while parked at a light. Ticketing people for these things is inappropriate, regardless of what the law actually says. The law was put in place specifically to address certain societal problems; these actions do not intersect with those problems, and so the officer should apply his legal discretion rather than acting like a predatory dickhead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't like about cops is that they prefer to enforce laws that are easy to enforce. They happily issue lots of traffic tickets, while drug dealers, rapists, murderers, burglars, muggers, etc. are not getting caught.
Where I live these are completely different cops. So no matter how active the traffic cops are, it doesn't make any difference to how police work other crimes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine how much more real crime they could stop by re-assigning traffic patrol to more useful departments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And imagine how much more software we could release if they re-assigned marketing staff to software development!
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
They all get the same training. So if you have qualified developers doing sales, then yes you might want to re-assign a few if the sales team is doing busy work while the developers are in crunch time.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Not insightful.
Apples and oranges. A better analogy would be juggling different software developers between projects to set priorities but that doesn't give us a gratuitous dig at marketing people.
Re:jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're down to busywork like writing tickets on technicalities that are obviously endangering nobody, they're already well past the point where they should be re-assigning.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously? As an honest reply to this (okay, I admit, I just got trolled) traffic cops are there for several reasons.
A) Revenue collection. I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that up front.
B) Keeping traffic close to speed limits. Yeah, the definition of "close" varies from cop to cop, and that makes it hard for a driver to drive with a lot of confidence of just how fast you can drive without getting a ticket. I hate that. I'd like an up front admission of "The speed limit is 70, but we won't ticket anyone doing under 82 unless they are otherwise driving unsafely". We'll never see that. Besides, "driving unsafely" is hard to define, but it's easy to give the guy changing lanes unsafely a speeding ticket, and it punishes unsafe behavior about as well (which means, not very) as a reckless driving ticket does, but it takes less to defend in court.
C) Being nearby when there is an accident. A nearby traffic cop is a first-responder for a traffic accident, and that job saves lives. They also do care-and-comfort during and after accidents. You look in any highway patrolman's trunk, and you'll find a teddy bear to be given to the little kid that survived a traffic accident (whose parent maybe didn't).
Most good traffic cops (and almost all Highway Patrol) regard speeding tickets as a way to get traffic to slow down so when there is an accident, there will be fewer deaths. In their job, it's always "when" and not "if" there is an accident. Energy is mass times velocity squared, remember.
Doing A lets the state pay for more cops to be around for C. Can't really tell you if I like that trade-off or not.
And yeah, none of this stops me from being pissed when I get a speeding ticket. Don't they have something better to do than bug me when I'm not hurting anyone?!?! ;)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
About 10 times as many die from motor vehicle accidents each year in the US as died in the 911 attack. This doesn't warrant some traffic cop activity?
No.
It doesn't warrant "some traffic cop activity", it may warrant specific activity that was proven effective in reducing motor vehicle accidents (as opposed to just extracting money from citizens).
However, it definitely warrants investing in better infrastructure.
Do not repeat the classic politician fallacy:
1. Something must be done
2. X is something
3. Therefore, X must be done.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
About 10 times as many die from motor vehicle accidents each year in the US as died in the 911 attack. This doesn't warrant some traffic cop activity?
No, it doesn't warrant it. It warrants changing your driver's licencing requirements and increasing the difficulty of the tests, so people who shouldn't be put in charge of a golf cart are incapable of passing.
Society sees traffic accidents as a problem of enforcement. It's not. We've been enforcing traffic laws for decades, and accident rates haven't significantly changed. The problem is, we've been handing out driver's licences like crackerjack toys for decades, so we've got complete and total morons behind the wheels of cars.
Take a look at some of the car accident videos on YouTube. Some of them, you wonder how they manage to put their pants on in the morning, because they're so stupid. Yet, the vast majority of these people (allowing for a few who just drive without licences) have passed a driver's test, and obtained a driver's licence.
There's your problem, right there.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
we've been handing out driver's licences like crackerjack toys for decades, so we've got complete and total morons behind the wheels of cars.
Sure, but if you're going to make it harder to get a license you also need to give people other options for getting around. I live in Vancouver. A few weeks ago I was talking to a woman from Omaha who had moved to suburban Vancouver and she was amazed that she didn't really need a car. She could do everything she needed to do on public transit, with the occasional taxi thrown into the mix. In Omaha that wasn't possible - You simply needed to have a car (or so she said). So if you're going to make it harder to get a license (and by extension take some people off the road) you need to concurrently fund public transit.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering how many people are killed in traffic accidents compared to say, murderers, then he is doing it right.
If he were a computer scientist, we would say he is going for Big O(n) improvements and pat him on the back.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of these texters while stationary also do it while moving.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of these texters while stationary also do it while moving.
Then it'd be just as straightforward to catch them while moving, as it should be. And a lot easier for them to pull over under those circumstances, as well. I've seen people get lit up by a cop while stopped at a red light...who then panicked and pulled forward into the intersection to almost cause an accident.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet that people with sports cars often drive faster than the speed limit. We should just issue them speeding tickets when they are stopped at red lights to save some time and trouble.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Informative)
There was a death caused exactly by that dring my journey in the UK yesterday - coming off a motor way, someone was texting while waiting for the lights on the slip road and didn't notice the lights had gone green and all the cars had cleared in front of them, and they got rear ended.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
While the guy was a jerk for not paying attention while at a light, when a stationary car at a stop light gets hit, some of that blame must go to the person who rear ended him.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically a 100% of the blame goes to the guy behind who did the rear-ending. I'd feel free to yell at the stationary driver, but it's not legal to just ram someone who doesn't accelerate fast enough for your liking.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically a 100% of the blame goes to the guy behind who did the rear-ending
Why did you even use the word 'technically'? 100% of the blame rightly goes to the one doing the rear ending. If my car died while waiting at a red light someone doesn't have the right to kill me.
Even if you are doing something illegal, that doesn't shift blame for the actual accident. If I am listening to a pirated song on my MP3 player when someone rear ends me I don't share in blame for that either.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:jerk (Score:4, Informative)
You aren't legally allowed to ram people who don't accelerate as fast as you'd like. It's 100% the rear-enders fault. Legally anyway...
Re:jerk (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it does matter. I have had cars stall and fail when attempting to accelerate from a stop. Discovered the spark plugs got fouled because of a blocked EGR valve. The car ran fine until that moment.
It is 100% the responsibility of the driver who collided with the obstruction for colliding with a non-moving obstruction. The person sitting at a light could be cited for obstruction of traffic; however that does not move the blame for the collision onto him. A person sitting at a light being a dufus could easily be a disabled car, a cop car, a deer, a construction worker, a driver experiencing a heart attack, or any number of things that the next driver needs to remain aware of and react appropriately to.
Or are you the type that also blames gun manufacturers for murders?
Re:jerk (Score:4, Informative)
None of those issues make the top 15 causes of death [cdc.gov], whereas accidents are #5.
Re:jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
While it sucks to get busted, he's doing everyone a favor by strictly enforcing a terrible law. Everyday, you, I, and everyone violates laws. Not because we have a guilty mind or because we're bad people or doing anything wrong but because laws and regulations have grown to the point that it's not possible to live a strictly legal life. But if they're only selectively enforced, why should we care?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.
Virginia was the worst, from what I witnessed on my trips between Georgia and Washington, D.C. There were many areas where multiple "unmarked"(no agency markings, or any markings, and no lights mounted outside of the vehicle) vehicles were lined up, waiting to initiate stops for what seemed like every 10 miles, or so. That is inviting major risk where it can be easily avoided.
I do have a serious problem with some of the actions of the officer discussed in the aforementioned article. O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 doesn't broadly cover "operating a motor vehicle", unlike other O.C.G.A. Title 40 laws do. If a driver is at a point of rest, even with a motor vehicle that has its motor in active operation and the vehicle's transmission is set in a gear that allows for forward or rearward locomotion, there is no legitimate reason to cite said driver for operating a mobile phone, or other device not exempted by 40-6-241.2("...citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation devices, and remote diagnostics systems, or amateur or ham radio devices."). Once the vehicle is in motion, the driver would be in violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2(unless the driver is one of the "special people" exempted by that law.
I am an ex-law enforcement officer in the State of Georgia. I arrested more than a few people for DUI without the vehicle being in motion during any of the time I, or any other law enforcement officer observed the violation(most traffic violations have to be observed by a law enforcement officer in order to stop and/or cite for the offense). So, I understand the distinction between driving, in the practical sense, and the legal view of being in control of a motor vehicle. This law isn't as broad as the officer believes it to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they're always so smug about it. "Well you're technicallly breaking the law so fuck you."
Like the asshats who ticket you for drunk driving when you're sleeping in your car. Lesson learned: you're harder to catch if you're a moving target, save the texts for the highway, and drive home to sleep in your own bed.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Informative)
drug dealers, rapists, murders, burglars, muggers
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others, by the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the whole point of traffic laws is to keep people safe. Bumping up his quota by giving tickets to people who aren't driving in an unsafe manner doesn't make him a good cop.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes actually.
I know, I know, it's fantasy, but yes, a cop that has the competence to act like something other than an autonomous robot and recognise when the law is unjust and counterproductive to enforce and so doesn't enforce it is exactly the type of cop I would love to have.
No I don't support bent cops who enforce it selectively to their or their friends benefit, but I don't think asking cops to apply a bit of common sense in law enforcement is really too much to ask.
In fact, I do have a friend who is a police officer and she does draw a distinction between pulling a commuter for going 35 in a 30 zone at 6 am in the morning on a road that is open, with good visibility and there is no one around and pulling a jack ass going 50 down the same road when it's busy, parked cars make it harder to see and there are kids walking home from school. She understands that the latter is actually a danger, but the former simply isn't and that pulling the former does nothing other than ruin someone's day, and make them hate the cops for such unnecessary enforcement.
The world isn't ever black and white and the idea that the law should only be enforced in a black and white manner simply means it has less respect from citizens because it doesn't reflect the real world. Some (all?) countries even allow cops explicitly to exercise a bit of common sense so it's not like the binary mindset on Slashdot that the law can only ever be applied black and white if an officer is doing what they should anyway is even correct. For example, police have the leeway to opt to not pursue prosecution in the UK for speeding if you can prove for example that your life was under threat.
Ultimately the best police officers are the ones that recognise what the law is intended to achieve - in this case, road safety, and that if enforcing the letter of the law doesn't achieve that, then it's pointless and possibly even counter-productive to enforce.
So yes, the cop in TFA is a jackass, incompetent, and emblematic of the inevitable race to the bottom of judging cops on how many convictions they get rather than how well they're doing in improving public safety which is the fundamental point of a police force.
Besides, one might argue in just focussing on people texting this cop is being selective in enforcement of laws anyway, because he's choosing to spend all his time enforcing texting laws and none of his time enforcing other laws letting breaches of them go unhandled. Really, this guy is just trying to make himself look like he has an awesome perp catch rate and nothing more, he's a lazy waste of tax payer's money, taking the easy route to try and make himself look like a relevant member of law enforcement by the figures.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. You can blame the po-po for giving tickets. They make the final call to give someone a ticket or not. They can also just give a warning or ignore it altogether. A good cop has had sufficient education and experience to make that judgement...
I'm guessing Officer Jessie "I issue more tickets for texting and driving than any other officer in the state" Myers isn't following your policy.
And ... if they're turning it into a competition by publishing a top-10 list of who issues the most, there's probably a lot of other officers who aren't either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Parked on the side of a street I can sort of understand, but parked in their own (presumably private) driveway?
That isn't a public road, so how do the DUI laws apply? As far as I know, you don't even need to have a driver's license, insurance, or vehicle registration if the car isn't operated on public roads. You should be able to drive as drunk as you want to if the vehicle stays on your own property...
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
That is to say, emergencies.
If I hear a horn in traffic I automatically go to DEFCON 3 and eagerly watch my mirrors for the shit to hit the fan (or my rear bumper). However needing to reminding someone that they are (allegedly) in control of a tonne of steel is not an emergency, its just a display of selfishness and lack of self control. Just put the damn phone down. How hard is it?
Re:jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen people fail to start driving when the light turns green because they were texting. I've seen people almost not stop for a light because they were looking at their screen. I've seen the driver behind me with both thumbs typing away on his device and therefore no hands on the wheel. I routinely see people driving along looking at their lap instead of where they're driving as they try to do a quick text.
So, I have no sympathy for people who are convinced they're so awesome at multi-tasking that they're trying to text and drive and end up getting a ticket.
I could walk 5 minutes from my house to an intersection, and if I stood in one place and simply photographed all of the drivers texting or talking on their phone (in their hand and gesturing with the other one), that I bet 30% or more of drivers are doing it.
If the stats tell us that distracted driving is causing a huge number of traffic accidents, then if the cop has decided to enforce the law on all of these people, too bad for them.
From what I've seen, those who can't resist a quick text at the stop light are also doing it while they're driving. It's often astounding to me just how many drivers are paying more attention to their phone than the cars around them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's *so* difficult to pull over, put it in park, and program the GPS while not in motion?
My phone's GPS especially... tie it to Bluetooth, put on some music, and let the voice command play through the car's radio... it'll turn down the music volume to state the direction, and then turn it back up. And if I miss a turn, it will recalculate almost immediately and doesn't need to be reprogrammed. There's literally no sane reason for you to need to futz with it while the car is in a traffic lane.
Re:FUCK YOU DOUCHEBAG (Score:5, Informative)
*IF* the person puts the phone down and goes when the light changes, I have no problem with texting at a red light. I'd sure prefer it to texting while the vehicle is in motion.
If the person holds up traffic because they kept texting, then write a ticket for obstructing traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
amazing how driving flips a switch in a lot of peoples head.
the tolerance for 1 second delays (which can easily be made
up by the next light) goes to zero, and they get mad at the
slightest things.
Why can't you just wait a few seconds to send that text? Why is the onus always on everyone else to acquiesce to your idiotic, piss-poor behavior?
Just pull the fuck over, if the message is so important it has to be sent/read immediately.
Re:Gwinnett county is a shithole (Score:4, Informative)
I have a friend who is a police officer and when I asked him why a neighboring suburb (Edina, MN) was so aggressive about traffic tickets. He lives there (but is an officer in Minneapolis) and said that only a couple of locations are they actually interested in the "safety" component of traffic citations.
He says the rest are just about opportunities to "interview" drivers to fish for other charges -- drugs, drunk driving, etc. He says that some of the speed traps around Southdale shopping mall area nab shoplifters occasionally -- he says they find 10 of the same clothing item in a car and if the guy can't provide a receipt they confiscate the stuff, book the driver on suspicion of shoplifting and impound the car.
It's basically just another kind of "papiere, bitte" situation.