The Shotgun Blog

« Manitoba Premier Resigns | Main | In Stephen We Trust »

Saturday, August 29, 2009

"In Praise of Traffic Tickets"

Slate gives a cheery endorsement to petty authoritarianism.

What do Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz, and 9/11 ring-leader Mohammed Atta have in common? They're all murderers, yes, but another curious detail uniting them is that they were all also brought to police attention by "routine" traffic violations.

[...]

Which brings us to the first social benefit of the traffic ticket: It is a net for catching bigger fish. One reason simply has to do with the frequency of the traffic stop, particularly in a country like the United States, where the car is the dominant mode of transportation: Most crimes involve driving. But another factor is that people with off-road criminal records have been shown, in a number of studies, to commit more on-road violations. A U.K. study (whose findings have been echoed elsewhere) that looked at a pool of driving records as compared with criminal records found that "2.5% of male drivers committed at least one primary non-motoring offense between 1999 and 2003 but this group accounted for 30.6% of the men who committed at least one 'serious' motoring offense." (Interestingly, the proportion was even more marked for women.)

My main criticism here is a lack of ambition. Why stop at traffic violations? Why not randomly detain people as they walk about making sure they have all their papers? They do this in many countries. Imagine how many wanted criminals could be captured simply by random check points! Or cameras in people's homes! After all, if you're innocent you have nothing to hide, right? The reference of Mohammed Atta is especially galling. How traffic laws could have prevented 9/11? I doubt even the most aggressive Homeland Security operatives would go quite that far.

In France citizens are required to register with the police whenever they move. In Canada this is done indirectly through drivers licenses. The various provincial highway acts are more than simple revenue generators, they grant the police sweeping powers over ordinary citizens going about their daily life. While there is such a thing as reckless and dangerous driving, that's not where the police focus their efforts. Simply driving above an arbitrarily posted speed limit scarcely makes one a reckless driver. 20 over the limit on the 401 is something very different than 20 over the limit on a residential street. It's much easier, however, to catch speeders on a superhighway - lots of volume compared to residential streets. If the point of catching speeders is deterrence, why are speed traps hidden? The time of day and volume of traffic are also major factors. Drive along any of the 400 series highways early in the morning on a statutory holiday. Every few kilometers you'll see someone pulled over. The traffic is light, the weather and lighting are good, this is about the best and safest time to travel above the limit. It's also the easiest time for the cops to meet their quota. By lunch time many are done for the day.

There is one particular stretch of the QEW near Huronontario in Mississauga where the limit drops from 100 km/h to 80 km/h quite suddenly. The nominal excuse is construction, but those improvements have mostly been completed. By a strange coincidence the Port Credit detachment of the OPP is visible from that stretch of the highway. That study after study has shown that variation in speed, not speed itself, is a leading cause of accidents has no effect on the "speed kills" mantra. It is virtually impossible not to violate the Highway Traffic Act. Its myriad of petty restrictions mean that it's up to the cop's discretion whether he wants to ruin your day, and meet his quota. While many complain of the revenue generating features of the traffic laws, fewer express concern over the arbitrary power such laws allow over the lives of ordinary non-violent citizens. As so many things in modern life, these petty abuses are done in the name of safety.

Posted by Richard Anderson on August 29, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

Pubis,

"Why stop at traffic violations? Why not randomly detain people as they walk about making sure they have all their papers?"

Because there is a difference between enforcing the law and stopping people for no reason at all. The drivers Vanderbilt mentions who are being stopped are not being stopped randomly. Vanderbilt is not arguing that drivers should be stopped for no reason, just that when they are already breaking small laws, it can sometimes help solve bigger crimes.

"Drive along any of the 400 series highways early in the morning on a statutory holiday. Every few kilometers you'll see someone pulled over. The traffic is light, the weather and lighting are good, this is about the best and safest time to travel above the limit."

My main criticism here is a lack of ambition. Why not just get rid of all speed limits everywhere. So if you want to drive 150km/h in the city past an elementary school in mind-afternoon, go for it! But let's go further. No one should ever be stopped for illegal turns or running red lights. In fact, lets get rid of all stop signs, traffic lights, and restrictions on turning. Then we can get rid of those fascist lines on the roads marking lanes and which side of the road to drive on. I'll drive wherever I fucking well want, thank you very much! That would strike a real death blow (no pun intended) to the petty authoritarianism you decry!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-29 8:25:24 AM

"But another factor is that people with off-road criminal records have been shown, in a number of studies, to commit more on-road violations"

What we're dealin with here is a complete lack of respect for the Law!"

Buford T. Justice (Smokey and the Bandit)

Come on! The majority of tickets are designed to generate revenue. Yes there is a degree of deterrent and traffic "calming" to it. But largely its for money ancd control.
If by some miracle, they actually nab a major criminal through this process then I guess that would justify all the "security" measures we're being trained to put up with. personally I believe criminals are caught due to good ol fashioned police work.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-29 8:27:49 AM

Why not randomly detain people as they walk about making sure they have all their papers?

Hey, they do it in China. I was randomly detained by Chinese police near Tiananmen square, and had my knapsack searched, and my visa checked. And it wasn't just tourists, they were randomly stopping Chinese nationals, too.

If you've ever been to China before, as I have--especially Beijing--you'll find police who've set up little tents along the sidewalks with tables to pull people aside randomly and search their belongings.

On the upside though, they were very polite to me. But is was the creepiest thing ever, nonetheless.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-29 8:49:04 AM

Sounds like sour grapes, Publius. You weren't written up yourself, by any chance?

In any case, those speed limits are there for a reason. Nor is it "impossible" to not violate the Highway Traffic Act. Believe it or not, we have evolved some since the Farmers' Anti-Auto Union published the following guidelines:

1. When approaching a horse on the road, the automobilist must stop off-side and cover his machine with a tarpaulin painted to correspond with the scenery, and thus make the machine less noticeable.

2. The speed limit on country roads this year will be secret, and the penalty for violation will be $10 for every mile an offender is caught going in excess of it.

3. On approaching a corner where he cannot see the road ahead, the automobilist must stop not less than 100 yards from the turn, toot his horn, ring a bell, fire a revolver, hallo, and send up three bombs at intervals of five minutes.

4. Automobiles running on the country roads at night must send up a red rocket every mile, and wait ten minutes for the road to clear. They may then proceed, carefully, blowing their horns and shooting Roman candles.

5. In case a horse is unwilling to pass an automobile on the road, notwithstanding the scenic tarpaulin, the automobilist must take the entire machine apart as rapidly as possible and conceal the pieces in the bushes.

Yeah. You've got it so hard.

Speed limits exist because they not only give the driver more time to respond to the unexpected, but they lessen the severity of any crashes that do occur. Please remember that you are not alone on the road and that driving is a privilege, not a right. I've looked in the Charter, and believe me, it is not in there.

If that's not enough to appeal to you, consider also that speeding wastes gas and really doesn't get you there much faster, if at all. Traffic lights and other cars will see to that, even if the cops don't. Your whole post is basically a lament that the cops don't make it easier for you to break the law. Well, boo hoo.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-29 9:00:26 AM

We need to lobby to have the Shane Matthews Random Strip Search Act passed, giving police the authority to randomly strip Shane Matthews whenever and wherever he is. Including in his own home, in the middle of the night.

Shane would clearly approve of this, considering his universal love for following all law.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-29 9:42:29 AM

I really hope they never legalize drugs or restrict traffic stops. Then I can live out my dream of becoming a corrupt sheriff who abuses his authority.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-29 10:52:43 AM

QEW is a good example of terrible and dangerous driving. Maybe it's a small percentage of the drivers at any one time but it is a bad reflection on a larger percentage of the Toronto-area population and indicates that these people act like imbeciles.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2009-08-29 11:12:03 AM

"Because there is a difference between enforcing the law and stopping people for no reason at all."

That's what random check stops are, they have no reason to stop a person, but do so, in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the Supreme Court has said that it's okay to violate the Charter in this case, which makes it worthless.

"The majority of tickets are designed to generate revenue."

True, they have little to do with safety.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-29 3:50:01 PM

Scott,

I wrote: "Because there is a difference between enforcing the law and stopping people for no reason at all."

You replied: "That's what random check stops are, they have no reason to stop a person, but do so, in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Ummm ... are you even paying attention at all? Seriously. Vanderbilt's article is not discussing (let alone endorsing) random checks. My reply is not endorsing random checks. I only talked about enforcing the law, like speed limits, stopping at red lights, etc.

So, yes, random check stops are bad. I think so and Vanderbilt does not endorse them. If you think otherwise, then you're an idiot. Please learn to read, before you reply, ok? Or better yet, stick to arguing with Shane. He's more your speed.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-29 4:29:01 PM

We need to lobby to have the Shane Matthews Random Strip Search Act passed...

Poisoning the well again, huh, Mike? You know, it's very amusing watching you call fouls and fallacies right and left, flaying people alive for even the smallest departure from what you consider to be fully structured and orthodox reasoning, and then watching you do the same thing yourself, with a note of hysteria subtly suggestive of one of the lesser degrees of madness. This behaviour of yours seems to come and go; are you bipolar or something? Anyone who would start screaming obscenities at someone asking his wife to be more discreet, and then boast about it on the Net, shows signs of not being all there.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-29 6:52:09 PM

I suggest you read Section 1 of the charter again, Freedom. None of the rights contained in the Charter is absolute. It is intended to protect you from abuse, not to provide a shield of invulnerability from behind which you can abuse others.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-29 6:53:59 PM

If no one here is your speed, Fact Check, why are you here? In fact, it's been a while since you posted in quantity on this blog at all. Oh, and you can stop looking down your nose; you have proved yourself superior in few things except nastiness. Lose your job or something?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-29 6:57:04 PM

If you think otherwise, then you're an idiot. Please learn to read, before you reply, ok? Or better yet, stick to arguing with Shane. He's more your speed.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-29 4:29:01 PM

Tactics such as these dis-incentivize me from wanting to respond to you. Good day.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-29 9:36:19 PM

There is a difference between:

(a) stopping people randomly -- for no reason -- and using the opportunity to see if they've violated any laws, and

(b) stopping people who have violated a minor law -- e.g. the speed limit -- and discovering that they've violated a major one in the process.

I don't think anyone here (except maybe Shane [just kidding]) is defending practice (a).

As for practice (b), whatever you think about it, I don't know how you could ban it even if you wanted to. The best that people can do is protect themselves by preventing the police from getting a clear look inside the car, giving them no cause for a thorough search. The ACLU has videos about techniques you can use online.

Also, Fact Check already made this point. :)

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-30 12:07:51 PM

Actually, Terrence, there are cases where practice a) is commonplace, the most conspicuous being roadside checks for drunk drivers; they don't know if you've broken the law or not until after they've pulled you over, so in that sense it's quite random. But I can't recall hearing of a single court ruling against the practice.

And the fact that the civil liberties groups are openly trying to help people break the law and get away with it may explain their tarnished reputation in recent years. Probable cause is by necessity subjective, just as the term "probable" is subjective, but let's face it—we pay the police to make life difficult for outlaws. And in almost all cases simply obeying the law is always an option, yes?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-30 1:26:45 PM

Shane,

You're right. Random sobriety checks occupy a middle ground between (a) and (b): the police don't know if you've done anything wrong, but they stop you anyway.

On the other hand, they're not fishing expeditions, in the sense that the police are stopping people for a specific reason. And, as far as I know, sobriety checks don't give the police a right to search your trunk or the car more generally, absent some additional cause.

Actually, to your knowledge, have there been any U.S. court cases in which (a) a driver is pulled over for a sobriety check, during which (b) evidence for some other crime comes to light, and (c) the evidence is thrown out in court once challenged?

My suspicion is that it would depend on how (b) occurred -- how the police acquired the evidence in the first place.

I'd also suspect that most of the libertarians here have more of a problem with the sobriety checks (not me, so much, as long as they're confined to times where it's known drunk driving is more frequent.) But this is not because they're fans of drunk driving, but because they don't trust the police to limit themselves to assessing the sobriety of the driver under those circumstances.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-30 4:07:20 PM

Terrence, I don't know of any cases involving alcohol, but I do know of one case where a court threw out a search of a car that turned up marijuana. The judge ruled that the officer lacked probable cause to search, even though the interior of the car reeked of pot. Sometimes I wonder how many of our judges smoke that shit; it would explain a great many things.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-30 4:15:23 PM

P.S. Libertarians may not trust the police, but they've given the police precious little reason to trust them, either. It's a two-way street, civil liberties notwithstanding. To judge from this board, libertarians tend to break the law a lot, so I wonder if that would be enough for cops to start targeting them specifically? Doubtless some figure they already do.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-30 4:18:06 PM

To judge from this board, libertarians tend to break the law a lot, so I wonder if that would be enough for cops to start targeting them specifically? Doubtless some figure they already do.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-30 4:18:06 PM

You really are a twisted freak.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-30 10:05:07 PM

In an article published the international financing agency’s chief economist says the recession has drained government treasuries to such an extent that “in nearly all countries … higher taxation is inevitable.” So higher taxation is inevitable. So watch out especially for more cash crabs by the municipalities too, much much higher prices for revenue generating speeding, parking tickets and by law violations too. After all all THOSE PEOPLE LIVING HIGH ON THE HOG AT THE CITY HALLS ARE NOT ABOUT TO GIVE UP THEIR EMPIRE BUILDING, LAVISH LIFESTYLES, EXOTIC BENEFITS, MOSTLY UNNECESSARY OUT OFF TOWN TRIPS.. and we have seen this already being carried out in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and now in Montreal. For decades I too have rightfully opposed to all the extravagant, wasteful spending of the city’s , tax payers money by civil, public servants because it is next the programs to the poor people that are cut first when financial problems occur… The continual mismanagement, budget deficit, tax payer money abuses and has there been even any changes in all this really? We all really still do need still a full review of the waste, fraud, and abuse that has plagued governmental efforts. What is also needed is a enforced, real program to remove public officials from office that take our money and abuse it, spend it on their own false pet projects while many of our people still are not getting the help that they need. The governments firstly should though clearly manage better it’s civil and public servants.. and the capital expenditures. Why? Well I do also know from real experiences that it is also the services to the poor and needy persons, those who can afford it the least, that are wrongfully cut to make up for the past budget mismanagement by Ministers, managers of the civil and public servants too in Canada’s Provinces, Municipalities too. Rather than cutting back on the governmental aid, programs to the poor and needy persons even next because of the government’s own unacceptable past mismanagement we all do now too need to really take another continual look at how effective our tax dollars are always all of being used by the civil and public servants, and their managers, politicians now too. Yes all Civil and public servants, politicians, need to be regularly supervised too. That is why we need and have the auditors, News media, Opposition parties, concerned citizens to do this too.. and it still generally is not enough as we can see. The fish stinks from the head but many cut the tail of first.. That seems how the governments wrongfully does respond to money and the poor people too now rather than firstly with the major crooks, the real tax abusers too..

Posted by: Ex | 2009-08-31 12:10:53 AM

"To judge from this board, libertarians tend to break the law a lot"

Good grief are you ever dense ...

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 5:16:39 AM

I've long suspected that many traffic laws are simply revenue grabs. That doesn't mean I believe there should be no rules however.

Right now, the police enforce the rules set by our gov't overlords, who rarely ever actually listen to us or base their rules on empirical evidence. Perhaps there's a better method ...

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 5:21:47 AM

You really are a twisted freak.

That's not a denial, just so you know.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 6:15:33 AM

Watch out especially for more cash crabs by the municipalities too, much much higher prices for revenue generating speeding, parking tickets and by law violations too.

And watch out, too, for the people parking legally and NOT breaking the speed limit, to NOT get tickets. I've had two complaints so far about my pointing out that libertarians break the law a lot, but neither one issued a denial. It really does take a special kind of person to break the law and then complain that enforcement is too effective. We call such people "criminals." Moving violations aren't criminal offences but the mentality is the same—the lawman is responsible for my lawbreaking.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 6:20:33 AM

Right now, the police enforce the rules set by our gov't overlords, who rarely ever actually listen to us or base their rules on empirical evidence.

You have empirical evidence, then, that excessive speed does NOT result in greater damage when collisions occur, or does NOT contribute to vehicles losing control under adverse conditions? Or that society can benefit from NOT charging people who steal time at the parking meter?

"Government overlords." Is that your best? You're slipping, Charles. Either that, or you really do have the mind of a serf.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 6:23:34 AM

"NOT charging people who steal time at the parking meter?"

Have you been to Quebec recently Shane? The meters are rather original in Montreal. For example, if you pay for the meter from 9 to 11, you can't come back at 10:30 and add an extra hour (i.e. until 12). You can only add money from the time you have come back. Interesting huh? You also can't use the time someone else paid for when they leave early.

"Either that, or you really do have the mind of a serf."

Heh. I suggest you read "The Road to Serfdom" ... might do you some good.

"You have empirical evidence, then, that excessive speed does NOT result in greater damage when collisions occur, or does NOT contribute to vehicles losing control under adverse conditions?"

That's not what I'm arguing. In fact, I favour speed limits, stop signs, red lights, etc. etc. etc. But as I have attempted to explain to you on countless occasions, we would be much better off if the roads were privatized. You, however, are not worth the time.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 6:54:09 AM

Charles, on your point about private roads, there is also the role of private insurance in a genuinely competitive market place - which doesn't exist at the moment. Take a small example. On much of the Autobahn there are no hard speed limits, yet the average speed is only 130 km/h. Why? Partly because drivers believe that to be a reasonable speed, partly because German insurance companies can refuse the claim of anyone who causes an accident and is travelling faster than 130 km/h. In other words, if you drive recklessly you are held to be personally liable.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-31 7:31:06 AM

Reread that paragraph, Charles; it makes no sense. The first half of it says you can't add money if you come back at 10:30; the second half of it suggests that you can only add money "after you come back." Is that warped, or what?

And has it occurred to you that these regulations exist to GIVE OTHER PEOPLE a chance to park?

Heh. I suggest you read "The Road to Serfdom" ... might do you some good.

I'm secure enough in the relative harmlessness of our state apparatus not to sit in the corner grousing and grumbling like a serf might talk about his lord. Especially since in this case the serf has the power to change lords, but often refuses to, because then he'd be partly responsible for a system he doesn't like.

That's not what you said, though, is it? And what difference does it make who fines you for a violation? Or are you under the belief that private roads would be fine-free?

You, however, are not worth the time.

Yet you keep coming back. Here, Rover, fetch the stick.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 7:54:35 AM

Publius, once again you are espousing the "reaction beats action" approach. It is always tougher, messier, costlier, and less effective to deal with an accident and its victims after it has happened, than to prevent it in the first place. Yet you argue that we should accept all those costs as the price of liberty. NO WAY.

There's more to personal responsibility than answering for what you've done. You're expected to take steps not to let it happen in the first place. Since empirical evidence shows that people cannot be trusted to do this of their own free will, we have traffic laws to provide them with added incentive.

If you ever do attain the corridors of power—which I doubt—you will swiftly learn that there is virtually no problem a leader cannot overcome by judicious use of the carrot and the stick. And yes, there are times when you will need the stick.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 8:00:44 AM

"Reread that paragraph, Charles; it makes no sense. The first half of it says you can't add money if you come back at 10:30; the second half of it suggests that you can only add money "after you come back." Is that warped, or what?"

Bloody fricking hell. If I come back at 10:30, I can only pay for an extra hour starting at 10:30 even if I had originally paid up until 11:00. Meaning I am paying twice over for 30 minutes.

"I'm secure enough in the relative harmlessness of our state apparatus not to sit in the corner grousing and grumbling like a serf might talk about his lord."

You are a serf Shane, and apparently aren't bothered by it. Perhaps one day you will realize that reading other points of view is the best way to come to a sound conclusion. For example, I've read almost everything the communists and Keynesians have had to say, and have rejected their ideas (but the point is I understand their ideas). You have never bothered to read anything "libertarian", and thus show your utter ignorance every time you post.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 8:28:57 AM

"there is also the role of private insurance in a genuinely competitive market place"

I absolutely agree. In Quebec, we have a scam called "no fault insurance". It's apparently fairer for everyone.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 8:45:20 AM

This whole thing reminds me of an essay by Robert J Sawyer @ http://www.sfwriter.com/privacy.htm - I've never really been able to tell if he's writing tongue in cheek, though I'm inclined to believe that he's completely deluded.

I figure we should just give up and go with full body and location monitoring so that we're always completely safe from ourselves and others.

Posted by: Todd | 2009-08-31 9:16:07 AM

Bloody fricking hell. If I come back at 10:30, I can only pay for an extra hour starting at 10:30 even if I had originally paid up until 11:00. Meaning I am paying twice over for 30 minutes.

Meaning someone else might get to park because you have a financial disincentive to hog the spot all day. Isn't that awful? And what makes you think it would be any different on a private road?

You are a serf Shane, and apparently aren't bothered by it.

I may or may not be a serf, but you definitely think like one, so you are more serf than I. Spitting at the Man's shadow may make you a rebel serf, but a serf nonetheless, so enmeshed in your own resentment of what you see as your "overlords" that you can no longer break free. You're a prisoner to your own hate.

Perhaps one day you will realize that reading other points of view is the best way to come to a sound conclusion.

No, the best way to come to a sound conclusion is to examine the facts for yourself. Listening to other points of view can make you consider things you would not have otherwise, and in that respect it's helpful, but it certainly isn't essential. In fact, the most momentous discoveries are often made by one man working alone while the world laughs at his back.

For example, I've read almost everything the communists and Keynesians have had to say, and have rejected their ideas (but the point is I understand their ideas).

Oh, you can read. Jolly good. Perhaps someday you'll learn to write as well.

You have never bothered to read anything "libertarian", and thus show your utter ignorance every time you post.

On the contrary. I have read your points of view, those who claim to be the very cream of the libertarian crop, the vanguard for the coming revolution. And I have come to understand how irredeemably selfish most libertarians are. Their grand talk of rights is a front for a grossly hedonistic "do it if it feels good and fuck the world" mode of thinking that has changed little since the 1960s. And it's increasingly evident that many libertarians fall into precisely this age group, repackaging old hippie mantras for current political taste.

It really is remarkable the morbid offence libertarians can take when even the slightest ripple disturbs the reflection in their little pool of self-regard, whether real or imagined. They screech in feline fury at the news that the police actually enforce the law. Several recent threads have taken aim at that most universally feared and hated tool of the socialist enslaver-oppressor, the traffic ticket. Look at the lather you've worked yourself into because you can't monopolize a parking spot all day. A motherfucking parking spot. Get over yourself, already.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 9:33:49 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Saturday, August 29, 2009

"In Praise of Traffic Tickets"

Comments