What's with the heavy police presence on US streets/HWYs?

[lebkuchen]

I rarely get to the US much, but having recently returned from NC, I was surprised to see four incidents within 15 minutes of police having directed drivers off the HWY to the side of the road for "a chat." One police officer was driving an unmarked SUV, which would have scared the hell out of me if I'd been driving alone. I probably wouldn't have stopped for fear of it being a mugger. I told my friend that if we got pulled over, the first thing we should show the police is our DoD military IDs. Though that didn't help a renown university professor with campus police, hopefully DoD ID's would be an early avoidance to being tasered or shot.

In Germany, in fact in all the countries of Europe I've traveled to (most of them), it's extremely rare to see a huge police presence of the kind seen in the US, let alone police pulling drivers to the side of the autobahns, making driving dangerous for everyone else. The average speed limit in Europe is 72 on the HWYs, though yes, some sections of autobahns are limitless. European police don't monitor the HWYs much, though there are cameras on more dangerous sections of smaller roads that encourage drivers to keep to the speedlimit. If drivers need assistance, there are phones every couple of hundred meters to call ADAC (AAA). It's illegal to run out of gas on the autobahns, and if you're the first on the scene of an accident, it's illegal not to stop and offer assistance (First Aid kits are mandatory for all drivers). That's what you get cited for on German HWYs.

So why are US police pulling over so many drivers? The police's imprint needs to be lighter, imo, so that the public isn't afraid of them. I was afraid, and I wasn't even stopped.

Perhaps some sharing of police procedure between the US and EU is in order.

[lindisfarne]

1. They're not pulling over enough in most places. Maybe they're finally doing something in the area

you saw this. I'd love to see a larger police presence on the roads where I live - and see them pulling over many more of the speeding, aggressive, dangerous drivers.

[Mythsaje]

4. Nah... Now they're pulling people over for not wearing seatbelts...

Apparently there's not enough SERIOUS shit going on for them to worry about.

[lebkuchen]

7. They do that on base all the time

because there IS no serious shit going on there.

[Mythsaje]

9. Yeah... that makes sense...

Bored MPs? I can see that.

Now, on the highways, I have to wonder why they'd forgo pulling over speeders, reckless drivers, etc... in order to pull over some moron too stupid to use seatbelts? Seems kinda bass-ackward to me.

[liberalmike27]

43. Well

Revenues are down all over the U.S., and tickets are a big source of revenue.

And of course, it is a numbers game. The more folks you pull over, the more likely you are to stumble onto something bigger, like drugs, or terrorists, or whatever.

But my best guess is 1, the revenues.

[lindisfarne]

15. If the law says wear a seat belt, then wear one. It's pretty simple. And, it keeps health care costs

down. (If you haven't bred & want to be taken out of the gene pool, find some other, quicker way to do it).

[Mythsaje]

22. That's not the point...

I think it's stupid not to wear a seatbelt, but I'd rather they spent their energy chasing people who were actually endangering public safety than people who are trying to eliminate themselves. The seatbelt laws were a giveaway to the insurance companies, and were (at least here) initially passed as a secondary offense (which meant they had to pull someone over for something else to ticket them for it) until they decided that, surprisingly, they could change the rules on us without a public vote. But I'd rather they extend their efforts to something a bit more... meaningful.

[lindisfarne]

24. Where I live, they cannot simply pull someone over for not wearing a seatbelt. So, that's not the

issue here.

[Mythsaje]

25. Oh, it's definitely the issue here.

Still pisses me off that they talked the people into passing the seatbelt law and then changed it like that.

[lindisfarne]

28. There's an easy solution for those who don't want to be pulled over. Wear the seatbelt.I have little

sympathy for people getting tickets for not wearing them. I'm glad the law is there.

[Mythsaje]

29. Wait...so you're okay with them pulling someone over for not wearing a seat belt

and being too busy writing that ticket to notice the speeder whipping by on the outside lane?

I'm not.

[lindisfarne]

36. Read what I said. I don't think you can legitimately conclude what you did from what I said.I'm also

less than convinced that your impression of what's happening in your area accurately reflects reality (and even less convinced that it reflects the general situation in the US).

You may be right about your area - but I've heard so many people make similar statements based on a few anecdotal cases, that I'm suspicious. People have a genuine human tendency to pay attention to what supports their prejudices (or you could also say "preformed opinions") & a tendency to ignore (or weight far less) those things that don't support their prejudices. Thus, I'm suspicious.

I'd have to see data on what tickets are being written for in your area to be convinced (I know I'm not going to ever see that data).

[Mythsaje]

38. You don't see the massive advertising campaigns for

"click it or ticket."

We do.

[lindisfarne]

40. How is that relevant?a)I don't see them (avoid main stream media at all costs)&B) I would interpret

it as a safety campaign.

[Mythsaje]

48. They schedule special patrols especially for seatbelts...

Waste of resources better spent on saving people from one another, not themselves.

[lindisfarne]

50. Now we're going in circles - my answer to that is #36. Let's end this! n/t

[paulsby]

53. those special patrols do NOT come out of the police budget

at least they don't where i work. when we have seatbelt emphasises they are paid by federal grant, etc.

iow, the officers are on overtime, and the pay is NOT coming from the police budget.

i'm pretty friggin' libertarian in general. but i think seatbelt laws are just since they reference acts on PUBLIC roadways in highly regulated conveyances, and wearing them has no privacy implications. govt. telling businesses they can;'t allow smoking? im against it. telling drivers they must wear seatbelts ? im for it.

and yes, people who don't wear seatbelts cost society a lot of $$$$.

[Greyhound]

23. "it keeps health care costs down"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thus speaks the advocate for the "worse than nothing" boondoggle.
:rofl:

[hfojvt]

42. just a minute, just a minute, just a minute

I posted a thread complaining about that about two months ago or so and the DU safety gestapo was all over me supporting the seatbelt law, which apparently came from the Obama administration and congressional Democrats. Not the law itself, but the law making it a primary offense, that a cop can pull you over just because you are not wearing a seatbelt. Apparently that was part of the stimulus bill to withhold highway/stimulus money from states until they passed such a law. Almost everyone who replied to my thread was all for it.

[Mythsaje]

51. Well, I wasn't among them... I hate that sneaky shit.

Pissed me off when they did it here in Washington State, considering it was a way for insurance companies to dodge responsibility whenever possible, and it was originally passed with the notion that it wouldn't be a primary offense.

I have always worn seatbelts, but I don't feel comfortable with this law. At all.

[paulsby]

54. yea, god forbid drivers

as well as insurance companies should have responsibilities.

if you are driving (on a public roadway), you have a responsibility to wear a friggin seatbelt. it's not rocket science.

[Mythsaje]

56. Based upon what?

The fact that you say so, officer?

Sig Heil.

[paulsby]

58. it;'s called the "social contract" and spare me the nazi references

they just express your bigotry.

driving is a PRIVILEGE. it is not a right. there are rules that you must follow before you are given permission to drive (pass tests, etc.) and there are rules that you must follow while driving.

that's how people operate in civil societies.

ignorant bigots just make nazi references about police when they have nothing to say.

and when you do that, you belittle yourself, not me.

[Mythsaje]

60. Blah, blah, Privilege, blah blah...

Show me somewhere in the Constitution where ANYTHING is defined as a Privilege rather than a right. Near as I can tell, that word doesn't appear anywhere.

I've met too many cops who used their status to bully ordinary citizens just for kicks and while I don't think ALL cops are like this, I accuse the rest of you of TOLERATING these assholes and not doing everything in your power to get them out of the uniform. Tolerating a bully is, in my mind, not all that different from BEING a bully, especially when it's not only about turning a blind eye, but acting to enable them to continue such behavior.

I think your whole culture is corrupted, and the individual good is overshadowed by some rather abhorrent behavior by a majority of officers. Not to mention the apparent assumption that we're ALL possible perps rather than citizens first that seems to be growing increasingly pervasive throughout the country. You might not be able to see it because you're in the middle of it.

A great example of what I'm talking about is how nearly every pro-police poster EVER condemns even obviously anti-social behavior on these boards. There's always a load of excuses instead.

[paulsby]

69. does the word ad hominem mean anything to you

we were discussing seatbelt patrols and you use this as an excuse to compare me to a nazi (you have never met me and know nearly nothing about me) and turn this into a venting exercise for your 'issues' vis a vis police and our evil police state (tm). there are any # of cases that reference driving PRIVILEGES. driving is a privilege. if you can evolve from personal attacks, bigotry and invective and engage in adult conversation, i am more than happy to discuss the relevant case law with you. tia

[hfojvt]

67. I prefer Orwell references myself

Big Brother says buckle up.

As if you (or the a$$holes who push through those laws) care more about my safety than I do.

I doubt if most people are in favor of this part of the social contract, but it has been forced on us by insurance companies.

Yay, democracy. One dollar one vote.


And calling driving a privilege never made sense to me. Since in our society it is all but impossible to survive without driving, you might as well call breathing a privilege.

[paulsby]

71. rule of law matters

i am very libertarian. iow, i think govt. should regulate less than it does in all sorts of areas. i am against govt. enforced smoking bans in private businesses, NYC transfat ban, WA state's online poker ban, overbroad kneejerk legislation like cyberbullyin laws, etc. etc. but driving is an activity that necessarily involves a dangerous weapon (a vehicle) , results in scores of thousands of preventable deaths a year, many of them being purely innocent victims, and is a highly regulated activity on publically funded roadways. wearing a seatbelt is an extremely minimal "intrusion" on one's personal autonomy. it doesn't tell people what they can say, wear, read, vote for, etc. i think people should be able to take illegal drugs (i am agaisnt the drug war). i think prostitution should be legal. do you get where i am coming from? but given the extremely minimal intrusiveness on autonomy, the fact that drving occurs on public roadways, the high cost to society of treating collision victims, etc. i have no problem with laws that require seatbelt use. i've been to so many tragic auto collisions. i've seen oceans of blood, and such a simple, non intrusive device as a seatbelt could ahve saved a lot of them. also, i think you would be surprised how many people support these laws. as for case law, driving IS a privilege. that doesn't mean that due process is not required to revoke said privilege/license. it is (at least in my state). but people often forget what a massive responsibility driving is. it is entirely unnatural to hurl massive chunks of metal through space/time, and the high number of deaths and injuries that result should be sobering. fwiw, i know a lot of cops i work with who are not diligent about seatbelt use, and that pisses me off too. we do take them off when doing slow neighborhood patrols or just arriving before we get on scene (for tactical reasons) but otherwise, they should always be worn. note also that seatbelt laws do NOT apply (nowhere i have worked)on PRIVATE PROPERTY. iow, you are only required to wear them on the public roadways. is it an intrusion upon liberty? sure. all laws are. is the intrusion justified imo? absolutely. as for your poitn about insurance companies and seatbelt laws benefiting them. sure they do . so what? that's not a bad thing. look, how about this, you can sign a waiver not to wear a seatbelt and then pay twice as much for insurance. would you go for that?

[hfojvt]

76. I don't like mandatory liability insurance either

and since I, imho, am the safest driver on the road (and practically the only one actually trying to obey the speed limit), there is certainly no reason I should pay higher insurance rates.

All of those are not the same in my opinion. I think the American system is supposed to require the state (and thus the cops) to serve the public rather than to rule the public. The people rule, not the state. When the state interferes with a citizen it should be doing so, not on behalf of a Governor nor even on behalf of a law. It should do so on behalf of a victim. In a 'seatbelt crime' there is no victim. So the police pull me over, waste my time and hit me with a fine, (none of which is beneficial to me) for MY OWN benefit. That is focked up. It is just wrong. Not a minor inconvenience, but a violation of the principles of America.

Online poker, otoh, has plenty of victims. Willing victims maybe, but victims nonetheless. You might say the same thing is implied in driving - a chance of injury, but it's not the same. In 100 miles of driving, there is a chance I could get seriously hurt or killed whereas in online poker there is a guarantee that many of the participants will be losers. Not a small chance, but a guarantee.

I have seen how many people do not support those laws, but put on their seatbelt because they are intimidated by the people they hired to protect themselves. That, I think, is a major wrong.

[paulsby]

77. many states don't require mandatory liability insurance

as long as you can provide evidence/bonding that you have sufficient funds to cover a minimum amount of liability. my police agency is self insured, and qualifies under this exception. insurance companies fwiw, offer different rates based on past behavior (primarily) as well as other certain attributes that are highly correlated with safety. iow, irresponsible drivers pay more. and they should pay more. the peopel DO rule. any citizen is free (in my state) to start the initiative process and repeal seatbelt laws. heck, you could pass an amendment making it unconstitutional. you are right about online poker. it's a zero sum game. actually, a negative sum game (given rake). i was a very successful poker player prior to stopping when the law passed. that's not the point. the point is that it's a personal choice. i have given ample reasons why i do not think that driving on a PUBLIC roadway means you have the personal choice NOT to wear a seatbelt. obviously, you disagree. this is a democractic republic. any citizen is free to either lobby their representative OR start an initiative to repeal seatbelt laws. iow, you think the law is unjust. great. i think MANY MANY laws are unjust. but there is this thing called rule of law. we do not have the right to break laws we believe are unjust UNLESS we are prepared to pay the penalties. that;s how rule of law works. and fwiw, WA state made it a C felony to play online poker, but it's perfectly legal to play at any # of casinos. they didn't write the law to "protect"people. they wrote it to protect their revenue and the indian casinos revenue. it's one thing to be a state like hawaii that bans pretty much ALL gambling. it's another to say "it's fine to gamble as long as you use OUR casinos, and pay US taxes but illegal to do it in the privacy of your own home". also, i could play an online tournament for as little as $1 and have hours of entertainment. that's a lot cheaper than a movie, PLUS you have the opportunity to win money. again, i was a very successful poker player. it was actually a pretty significant income source. i just spend more time futures trading now, since WA state hasn't outlawed THAT... yet

[hfojvt]

64. wer have the responsibility now that the safety gestapo has passed their laws

But why should we have that responsibility other than the fact that a bunch of safety-firsters wanna run everyone else's life?

Next you will be telling me that as a bicyclist I have a responsibility to wear a helmet and also to stop at stop signs on empty streets.

[paulsby]

81. i am telling you that as a bicyclist

on a public roadway, you have the same duty to obey traffic laws, and that includes stop signs, as anybody else does. you are free to break those laws, as long as you are willing to pay the price. as a former USCF cyclist, i support the right of cyclists to share the roadway with cars, to have equal access to the roadways, etc. and with rights come responsibilities. you are perfectly free to run a stop sign but if you do and you get a ticket don't come whinging to me. you could make the same argument that cars have the right to run stop signs on empty streets as well. fwiw, i am not a safety firster. no safety firster supports drug legalization, prostitution legalization, ultimate fighting legalization (some states still outlaw it), gambling legalization, right to keep and bear arms, etc.

[lebkuchen]

6. Every city needs income. Why not install more speed cameras?

With the lenient gun laws in the states, it's dangerous for police to be involved with every speeder on the road. Keep it simple and send the aggressive drivers a bill in the mail.

[Mythsaje]

10. Do you have any idea how few gun battles on the side of the road

there really are?

Gun laws... sheesh.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Speed camera get destroyed here, just like in the UK and France

There is a fair amount of anarchist or at least F*** the Government in the American national character.

[Mythsaje]

26. I'd be worried if there wasn't, to be honest...

I'm not an anarchist, but I distrust authority.

[Mythsaje]

2. My wife makes the comparison between German cops and American cops all the time...

She lived over their on the Netherlands border for 8 years. Cops over there react to SERIOUS shit, not the piddly ass shit that they focus on over here. It's about actually doing their jobs in Germany, here it's just as much about creating an environment of intimidation.

edited to fix "there..." For some reason I typed "their." I never do that.

[lebkuchen]

11. Europeans remember the heavy presence of German police/military

on their streets during the war...a very aggressive presence. Post-war is the opposite, and I think it's done intentionally. Even during political protests, you need a permit to protest, the police will be there, and there is rarely an incident of the need for tear gas, tasering, baton beating and so forth, as in the US. You can even drink alcohol and protest.

In the US it's as though the citizens can't be trusted so must be monitored at all times. It's a strange feeling.

[Mythsaje]

13. Right, except that the tighter the controls they put on citizens here

the more likely an explosion. And I think they KNOW it, which gives them the chance to crack down and show the people who's boss.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. How many people are left alive from that time frame who would remember that?

[lebkuchen]

20. A lot.

Germans instituted a lot of rules post-war, as did the Japanese. For example, Germans aren't allowed to say they're the greatest or best country.

[Lars39]

3. Tickets bring in money, if drugs are found they get the vehicle.

[Mythsaje]

5. In other words, a license to steal...n/t

[ContinentalOp]

63. And they get the drugs. Don't forget the drugs.

;)

[SmileyRose]

8. We have lower taxes and higher speeding tickets.

those speeding tickets are what pay for the 72" Plasma TV in the police lounge. We have a running joke about getting a ticket near the end of the month that the cop had to meet his ticket quota.

You have to understand the difference. In Europe the whole mindset is about community and helping each other. It's as natural as the back of your hand. The laws in America are basically "you're on your own, suckers!"

[lebkuchen]

16. In the US it's an aggressive mindset, pitting police against citizen

Maybe it's the gun leniency that makes it so. No doubt racism plays a part.

The MP unit on my base leaves the impression that those in the group are not very bright. They leave their lunch garbage in the parking lots, one of them spilled a can of paint in front of their driveway and just left it, they park their personal cars wherever they want so that those who work in the area can't park in designated areas...basically a very uneducated lackluster group from what I've seen. Now they're headed to Iraq to win hearts and minds.

[proteus_lives]

74. Miss any stereotypes there?

"gun leniency" "racism" "aggressive mindset" "very uneducated" Ahh, I don't know what is more yawn-inducing, US-bashing from Europeans or other Americans.

:eyes:

What euro-topia are you from?

[lebkuchen]

82. Did I mention all their tattoos?

I've seen less ink in a box of ballpoint pens than I have on MPs' skin.

[SmileyRose]

80. Yes Americans can be aggressive

I seem to remember Germans being a bit on the aggressive side not too long ago........

[Missy Vixen]

12. I got pulled over for the first time in sixteen years a week and a half ago

The police in our hometown write only 17% of those they pull over; we can't afford the prosecutors, police time, etcetera.

I drove the wrong way down a one-way street. :eyes: The cop wasn't ticketing me. It was more of a friendly "don't do that again" thing.

In other cities, the cops are writing tickets like crazy because it's an additional source of revenue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Local cops, esp those in outlying areas tend to be much more reasonable

[depakid]

19. States and local governments need money

Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't also shakedowns going on- especially in the South.

[Greyhound]

21. Because we have subtly become a police state.

The really scary thing is that there is at least a significant minority of people that like it. They have bought into the fear mongering and believe that without Big Brothers ubiquitous presence there would be chaos.

You interested in sponsoring an immigrant?

[Cid_B]

27. Projecting much?

The public isn't afraid of the police as a whole.

See? I can pull facts out of my ass as well.

I would love to know your MOS. I can't think of any of my Soldiers who the first thing they think about when they see a cop is "Gosh, I hope isn't mean to us or tasers us."

[Mythsaje]

31. Soldiers are different than civilians...

Easily intimidated soldiers would be next to useless.

Most citizens, on the other hand, particularly of color, have good reason to be concerned if a cop pulls up behind them--even if they HAVEN'T done anything wrong.

[Cid_B]

78. That was my point I suppose...

The OP talked about flashing DOD ID so that the mean police wouldn't whoop/fry their ass and it just struck me as a strange attitude from a Soldier.

Everyone feels that little "uh oh" feeling in their stomach when a cop is behind them on the highway/autobahn, even other cops in our civilian vehicles. However, fear is another thing entirely.

[boppers]

30. Reckless speeders kill people.

The vast majority of Americans, oddly enough, drive horribly. Bad speed choices, lane changes, distractions, following too close, etc.

We don't have as many cameras, so road police spend most of their time ticketing people who are speeding recklessly.

Rule of thumb: If you cannot slow down to the official limit *before* you are within measurement distance, you're going too fast for the road.

I live in Portland, OR, where (scarily enough) we actually have cameras that pay for themselves by catching morons *running red lights*.

[depakid]

34. Oh, there are PLENTY of speed traps in the area

that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.

In fact, down I-5 at Coburn, the legislature actually had to pass a law to take away a section of the city's property, because the local cops were plaguing a section of the interstate to pad their coffers to the tune of 100's of thousands of dollar a year.

Some of the more notorious ones can be found here:

http://www.copspy.com/OR.html

[boppers]

39. I regularly do 130mph on Oregon roads. I know speed.

You're talking about speeding in areas with interchanges, other traffic, and people, where a fast car out of control could take out others.

I-5 is a truck and passenger corridor, and as such, it's ill suited for speeds above 60-70mph, simply because there are so many others on the road.

[depakid]

45. I-5 is long and mostly flat!

and the prevailing speed is 75. Drive 60 and you're creating a hazard.

[boppers]

47. The midwest is flat. I-5 has lots of flat-ish stretches.

I-5 in Oregon runs through lots of cascade bumps and loops, where 2-3 mile visibility just isn't available. (The Cali stretch is different).

If you think that driving the legal limit is a "hazard", I really don't know what to say.

I drive fast at times, and if I ever came up doing 130 on your tail while you're doing 65, that wouldn't justify me calling *you* the hazard.

[depakid]

49. If you're driving 10-20 miles an hour below the prevailing speed you're creating a hazard

and most all of I-5 to Eugene is straight and flat as can be. Beyond that, there aren't that many cars on the road.

[boppers]

52. I've never been on a PDX ->Eugene run without traffic.

YMMV.

[depakid]

55. I just was last week

and again in June.

And there was someone pulled over at the usual spot about 10 miles north of Eugene!

They'll nail you at Oakridge, too- where the speed limit changes fast, is poorly signed and there's an empty four lane road.

Dundee and Yamhill are also noteworthy for their speed traps which have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising money.

[boppers]

61. *sigh*

If you drive by a cop, who has pulled somebody over, that's traffic.

..oh, and by state law, you have to *slow down* for traffic like that.

That being said, twice in one year, of limited traffic, isn't much. It took me at least 10-15 Portland->Bend runs to really figure out when it was safe to open up the throttle, regardless of police.

Driving fast safely isn't about avoiding getting caught, it's about avoiding all other cars... which may, or may not, be driven by a cop.

[merh]

32. It's the economy - they are generating revenue because the

recession has caused massive budget cuts.

[1]

33. tickets = money. and money is in short supply. do not speed. make sure your lights work....

and don't be black.

you'll be fine...

[TreasonousBastard]

35. It's difficult to generalize, but a few points..

years ago the Star-Leger did an investigation of traffic tickets in New Jersey and found that the smaller towns got a healthy dose of ticket revenue. One town got over 80% of its budget from traffic tickets!

Notwithstanding the fears of gunowners seeing death at every turn, there are vast areas where absolutely nothing happens and the cops have nothing to do but give out tickets, and that is a large part of their performance reviews. While there may not be official "quotas," everyone in the department knows who gave out the most tickets and who gave out the least-- no one wants to be either of those guys.

Thanks to MADD, programs were set up where many police departments get rewards for arresting drunk drivers. Anything you do to give the cop reasonable cause to stop you as a possible drunk gets you stopped. Cops who make DUI arrests often get special favors, too.

At one time in NJ, Turnpike duty was given to new state cops without seniority, and was hated. It could be given as punishment, too, and hated even more. Any cop on Turnpike duty was not in a good mood.

If there was a particularly grisly accident recently, cops are human and this often spurs them on a safety kick. A stretch of road particularly prone to death and destruction will often get their attention, too, as will holidays with an expected death toll.

And, there's that Homeland Security nonsense adding to it now-- they've been getting all sorts of training about how to be a hero catching the nect mad bombers.

And, yeah, there's some Dirty Harrys out there.

[backscatter712]

37. Revenue collection.

The economy's shit, state and local treasuries are running dry, so the standing orders for cops are to bring in more revenue.

What, you think they actually give a shit about public safety?

[boppers]

41. You think speeding isn't a matter of public safety?

What?

[backscatter712]

46. The way the police enforce the speed limits...

It's clear that they don't consider public safety to be a priority...

[boppers]

62. Example please.

Were you stopped for doing 50 in front of a school, or what?

[hfojvt]

44. I have noticed that for a long time

I go one mile in an American city and I see three cop cars. I have long joked to myself 'we are a police state' because I see cops everywhere. Of course now it does not help probably, that I live a mere four blocks from the cop shop.

I noticed the same thing in Deutschland. I could not find a cop in spite of an hour of searching. Or a police station either.

This puzzles me though.

"I rarely get to the US much, but having recently returned from NC,"

Isn't North Carolina part of the US. Did you return TO NC. Or is their some other place known as NC that I cannot think of now?

[SleeplessInAlabama]

57. I took it to mean they did not live in the United States. n/t

[hfojvt]

68. duh, but why would you return to the United States FROM North Carolina

unless NC means Northern Canada or Norway C____ or Netherlands C____ or Nigeria C_____ or Nepal C_____ or New Caledonia.

The OP said having returned here FROM NC.

Okay, now I prehaps missed that HERE is not the United States, but rather some other unmentioned place.


Perhaps that is a duh, but this

"I rarely get to the US much, but having recently returned from NC,"


If you live in Norway wouldn't you write "I rarely get to the US much, but having returned recently from Norway" or "I rarely get to the US much, but having recently returned to NC" or "I rarely get to the US much but having recently returned home from NC"

Otherwise it sounds to me like the OP is saying they returned to the US from NC. Probably I was the only one puzzled by that but to me the empty word returned goes back to the first part of the sentence (the US) especially since I am assuming the OP was originally from the US.

[SleeplessInAlabama]

73. And I'm really not qualified to speak for OP...

But when I read it, both "I rarely get to the US much" (going to the US from wherever they reside) AND "returned FROM NC" (coming from North Carolina to wherever they reside) suggests they live outside the US.

Like, I rarely go to the United States, I went recently, and during that time I visited North Carolina. I've now returned and I made this post.

Maybe...

[Flaneur]

59. The cops are out there trolling for dope.

Using pretextual traffic stops as an excuse to try to get intimidated drivers to consent to a search and sic the drug dogs on them if they don't.

I always love those stories where the guy gets pulled over for "following too closely" on I-90 in western South Dakota.

Or for "weaving within the lane."

Or for "failing to have turn signal on for a full two seconds before changing lanes."

The state Highway Patrols are getting as bad as highway bandits.

[ContinentalOp]

65. I think there's a simple solution to this. Any revenue the police collect should go to the state.

Ticket revenue should never benefit the police budget directly. It should by law go into some kind of general fund totally isolated from police spending.

[SoCalDem]

66. M O N E Y .. actually the lack of it.. More fines=more $

They are stopping people here for cell-phones, seatlbelts & anything they can think of:(

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. Your first sentence gives your whole post away.

How did you know that the four "incidents" that you claimed to see involved police directing drivers off of the "HWY" for a "chat"? Did you stop and ask?

[BR_Parkway]

72. In NC - court costs are $85 - $5 goes directly into the police retirement

fund (general fund, not the individual who writes the ticket).

Every time the market drops, you see a step up on traffic tickets - unlike the rest of us, they can actually replace the money their retirement fund loses simply by writing more tickets.

[laylah]

75. Here in the Quad Cities area

I have seen an increase and attribute it to revenue. JMVHO.

[northernlights]

79. most likely nabbing speeders

to help pay their salaries.

I *wish* they'd post some on my street. People routine go 20+ mph over the limit. We had 2 accidents and 1 death within 4 days not long ago, all due to speeding. I don't dare walk my dogs on my street. I ended up getting a PO box, after almost being hit twice by speeders while picking up my mail.

The purpose of the lower speed limits in the US is 2-fold. Mainly to reduce the number of accidents and costs of medical care for those accidents. Also to reduce emissions by keeping cars at more efficient fuel-burning speeds.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

83. In the real world, police are actually revenue officers.