A better way to conduct traffic stops?

[jimbogumbo]

With supporting data for the rationale: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-myth-of-the-dangerous-traffic-stop-is-killing-black-men-in-america/ar-BB1fJkY3

[mahagonny]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

[Parasaurolophus]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.

[Parasaurolophus]

On topic: it seems to me that we should start accepting people "getting away". If someone is running, you can chase and tackle them, but shooting is dangerous to everyone in the vicinity. If a car is making a break for it, shooting is a danger to everyone in the vicinity, and chasing them leads to all kinds of reckless driving. Note the make, model, and colour, as well as the license plate, and nab them later on at their house instead. We don't need action heroes.

Especially not for traffic enforcement, as the article observes.

[mahagonny]

Just thinking probability. Everyone's talking about improving police work. Given the stress police are under now and the increased disincentive for sane people to choose policing as a career, i would estimate that the chances are just as good that we will get worse service from them in the future, as better.

[jimbogumbo]

So, that went well. I'll try once more.

What happens in these threads is that some of us almost always go straight to what I would characterize as exceptions. I get it, I'm a math prof, and we are used to doing that in our own work. But, that is also why I think math profs often stink at statistics and would make terrible public policy. These discussions should focus on Type 1 and Type 2 error, and what causes the most harm to society as a whole should be considered more in this type of situation.
'
There is a good article today at Politico focusing on traffic stops. Rather than link to it, I'll link to the study cited in the article. (There is also a link to a good study in the Slate article I linked to above).

https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf

[Caracal]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

Just because you can construct scenarios where routine traffic stops result in discovering a crime doesn't mean its a good idea. You could make that argument about anything. If armed police officers came to your house to issue you a ticket for not mowing your lawn enough, and then ran your information, perhaps they would find rarely happen to discover people in the process of committing serious crimes. However, this isn't a police job because we don't think its appropriate for armed agents of the state to show up at people's houses because their lawn is an eyesore. It would also Some city employee with a clipboard handles it.

[mahagonny]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

Just because you can construct scenarios where routine traffic stops result in discovering a crime doesn't mean its a good idea. You could make that argument about anything. If armed police officers came to your house to issue you a ticket for not mowing your lawn enough, and then ran your information, perhaps they would find rarely happen to discover people in the process of committing serious crimes. However, this isn't a police job because we don't think its appropriate for armed agents of the state to show up at people's houses because their lawn is an eyesore. It would also Some city employee with a clipboard handles it.

I'd be in favor of electronic equipment that can spot when a motorist is operating a car with missing required signal lights, or too loud a muffler, or bald tires, or is speeding, and them sends him an email or letter with a warning or penalty. Kind of like the way they read your license plate for tolls on the highway, In the meantime, no brake lights are a reason to get stopped, so I deal with it by only driving a car that passes inspection. And I expect him to have a gun and he's also on legitimate business so I don't act like a jerk.
I'll check the thread periodically to see when we all have this solved so all laws are enforced perfectly and no one ever gets hurt or feels harassed.

[clean]

I think that the quote is "the only thing that keeps people honest is the fear of getting caught".

Put of cameras to catch red light cameras to send tickets to people that keep going through even after the light changes, or think "yellow means Speed UP", and people will behave at THOSE intersections but make up for the 'time lost complying' there, by speeding through the others!

Pulling people over, is a reminder to the rest of the public that there are consequences for bad driving behavior.

(Pulling people over for broken tail lights is a public safety issue, as well.  Broken safety equipment is a danger to others, as well as the car owner/driver)

[dismalist]

So, that went well. I'll try once more.

What happens in these threads is that some of us almost always go straight to what I would characterize as exceptions. I get it, I'm a math prof, and we are used to doing that in our own work. But, that is also why I think math profs often stink at statistics and would make terrible public policy. These discussions should focus on Type 1 and Type 2 error, and what causes the most harm to society as a whole should be considered more in this type of situation.
'
There is a good article today at Politico focusing on traffic stops. Rather than link to it, I'll link to the study cited in the article. (There is also a link to a good study in the Slate article I linked to above).

https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf

The article is indeed good and thorough.

Looks like there is discrimination. The question remains why. Is this racial animus? Or is it statistical discrimination?

The answer determines what appropriate policy might be. If one got that wrong, there'd be hell to pay.

[Caracal]

I think that the quote is "the only thing that keeps people honest is the fear of getting caught".

Put of cameras to catch red light cameras to send tickets to people that keep going through even after the light changes, or think "yellow means Speed UP", and people will behave at THOSE intersections but make up for the 'time lost complying' there, by speeding through the others!

Pulling people over, is a reminder to the rest of the public that there are consequences for bad driving behavior.

(Pulling people over for broken tail lights is a public safety issue, as well.  Broken safety equipment is a danger to others, as well as the car owner/driver)

Sure, but there's no real reason an armed police officer needs to be doing it, which is the point that the guy is making in that article. If its true that attacks on police officers during traffic stops are really rare than routine traffic enforcement could be handled by trained and unarmed government employees who could issue tickets and would be able to call police officers in the rare situations in which it was actually necessary.  This isn't really that strange an idea. Police officers don't issue parking tickets.

[marshwiggle]

Sure, but there's no real reason an armed police officer needs to be doing it, which is the point that the guy is making in that article. If its true that attacks on police officers during traffic stops are really rare than routine traffic enforcement could be handled by trained and unarmed government employees who could issue tickets and would be able to call police officers in the rare situations in which it was actually necessary.  This isn't really that strange an idea.

If these situations go badly, they do so within seconds, or minutes at most. That would be way too fast for a police response. If it were an attack, the employee would be injured or dead.

Police officers don't issue parking tickets.

Parking tickets are typically placed on unoccupied cars.

[Caracal]

Sure, but there's no real reason an armed police officer needs to be doing it, which is the point that the guy is making in that article. If its true that attacks on police officers during traffic stops are really rare than routine traffic enforcement could be handled by trained and unarmed government employees who could issue tickets and would be able to call police officers in the rare situations in which it was actually necessary.  This isn't really that strange an idea.

If these situations go badly, they do so within seconds, or minutes at most. That would be way too fast for a police response. If it were an attack, the employee would be injured or dead.

Police officers don't issue parking tickets.

Parking tickets are typically placed on unoccupied cars.

That's the point. Attacks are quite rare. Lots of people face relatively small amounts of risk of violence in their jobs and we still don't think its a good idea for them to be armed.

I'm pretty sure it isn't rare to have somebody come sprinting out while the people are writing the ticket and start arguing about it. A quick google search shows that parking enforcement officers do get attacked sometimes. Doesn't mean that it happens enough that the job should be handled by armed police officers.

[Sun_Worshiper]

On topic: it seems to me that we should start accepting people "getting away". If someone is running, you can chase and tackle them, but shooting is dangerous to everyone in the vicinity. If a car is making a break for it, shooting is a danger to everyone in the vicinity, and chasing them leads to all kinds of reckless driving. Note the make, model, and colour, as well as the license plate, and nab them later on at their house instead. We don't need action heroes.

Especially not for traffic enforcement, as the article observes.

Well said

[mahagonny]

Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?

I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.

Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.