[chrisseaton]

But I hear about the police stopping people for things like tail lights in the US? Or in other comments people are talking about being stopped because they're driving a suspiciously cheap car in an expensive area? The police just don't seem to stop people here in the UK unless there's something seriously wrong. As I said elsewhere, I've never seen a tail light out ever, but it seems to be a common thing for normal people to be stopped for in the US?

And of course speed cameras don't bother you if you don't speed in the first place, so they don't catch people unless they're doing something wrong.

[dsfyu404ed]

> they're driving a suspiciously cheap car in an expensive area?

This happens all the time in rich areas. It's a plain and simple fishing stop.

>I've never seen a tail light out ever,

Because your government intentionally makes vehicle ownership so financially onerous that everyone who drives a car has the resources (time more than money) to get it fixed promptly. In the US, even in poorer areas it's not common but it's not uncommon. In a 40min rush hour commute in the winter (when it's dark and you can see everyone using lights) I could probably still count on one hand the number of head lights and tail lights I see out.

[chrisseaton]

> We haven't gone as far down the 1984 path as you have

> This happens all the time. It's a plain and simple fishing stop.

[dsfyu404ed]

Oh screw off.

You can't make a good first impression on a speed camera.

Overwhelming majority of fishing stops result in a warning because the cop realizes after getting a closer look at the vehicle and its occupants and realizing that there's nothing sketchy going on. And I say this as someone who's been subject to a heck of a lot of fishing stops because I tend to check the boxes that make me worth stopping (one time I had almost an entire PD stop me over the course of a month as they rotated through the shift and location that put them where I was driving at the time I was there).

I'd much rather have laws that go fishing than robots that enforce the law to the letter 100% of the time.

[chrisseaton]

> Oh screw off.

Please try not to be abusive.

> result in a warning because the cop realizes after getting a closer look at the vehicle and its occupants and realizing that there's nothing sketchy going on

If there's nothing sketchy going on... what are they getting a warning for?

> You can't make a good first impression on a speed camera... I'd much rather have laws that go fishing than robots that enforce the law to the letter 100% of the time.

I don't want people being let off because they make a good impression! That lets the police enforce laws based on their biases, such as race or gender. I'd much rather have simple factual enforcement. Either you were speeding or not.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Please try not to be abusive.

As far as internet comments go I think it's more than a stretch to put "screw off" in the abusive bucket.

>what are they getting a warning for?

So the cop can have a paper trail proving he was awake and working.

>I don't want people being let off because they make a good impression! That lets the police enforce laws based on their biases, such as race or gender. I'd much rather have simple factual enforcement. Either you were speeding or not.

Automated enforcement of the letter of the law would instantly screw basically everyone. I don't think you understand how many letter of the law violations cops see every day and choose not to do anything about.

[FireBeyond]

So me getting warnings, and my plates being in a cop's notebook / files is, to you, an acceptable price to pay for law enforcement officer productivity accountability?

[drewmol]

>As far as internet comments go I think it's more than a stretch to put "screw off" in the abusive bucket.

But not "as far as HN comments go". The community members, posting rules/guidelines, the user moderation system, dang, etc. work to foster friendly substantive discussions. Please help this effort.

[chrisseaton]

I think you're basically making a slippery slope argument. Nobody was arguing for automatic enforcement of all laws, but I think traffic laws are fine. I've never had a traffic ticket for anything ever. If you don't speed, they don't bother you.

[Thetawaves]

> I'd much rather have laws that go fishing than robots that enforce the law to the letter 100% of the time.

This is how corruption, and racial profiling, and all manner of terrible things start.

You definitely DO want the laws enforced 100% without exception. It must be applied to those who write the law as equally as it does to everybody else. This is how laws get fixed.