- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
ETA Spinoff - Traffic Laws - TODAY, exist primarily as an end around the 4th Amendment
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:11 pm
Okay because apparently it wasn't clear. The point of this thread isn't that traffic laws in and of themselves are crooked. It's the fact that their existence allows the government through the police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment or otherwise they couldn't. And this problem is rampant across the United States
Whatever their original reason. Whatever the average voter THINKS traffic laws are for.
In practice, they've become little more than a constitutional end around allowing police to shake down and search people they otherwise couldn't touch.................confiscate property they otherwise couldn't have...........and create a default tax revenue stream they otherwise couldn't have passed.
Discuss
Whatever their original reason. Whatever the average voter THINKS traffic laws are for.
In practice, they've become little more than a constitutional end around allowing police to shake down and search people they otherwise couldn't touch.................confiscate property they otherwise couldn't have...........and create a default tax revenue stream they otherwise couldn't have passed.
Discuss
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:21 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Exactly right ! No way we should be required to stop at a red light to allow flow from another direction under penalties for not doing so. It would be much better not having to stop just to hope that your son or daughter makes it across the intersection at say 80-90 mph while another vehicle tries not to T-bone them doing 80-90 mph themselves
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:22 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Nosevens
Exactly right ! No way we should be required to stop at a red light to allow flow from another direction under penalties for not doing so
Sigh. Your lack of comprehension is noted.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:28 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
We can have 'profiling' or traffic laws used for otherwise impossible shakedowns.
I'd prefer profiling.
All in all, it sucks... but a large segment of society can't follow the rules the rest of us have no problem following.
I'd prefer profiling.
All in all, it sucks... but a large segment of society can't follow the rules the rest of us have no problem following.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:30 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Sigh. Your lack of comprehension is noted.
That's not fair, Grumpy... you didn't detail which traffic laws were nefarious vs ones that are actually useful and beneficial to society. Give us something meaty to discuss.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:32 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Why can I turn right at a red light when no one is coming but, not left.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:32 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
My lack of comprehension? You are trying to outdo 4cubbies on insane nonsensical thoughts and demand people comprehend your idea. Next you’ll be demanding others to call you by your preferred name of Queen of Sheba
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:33 pm to FATBOY TIGER
Right turns involve one lane... left is crossing lanes. That's all I got.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:37 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
I agree that most tickets are just a way for the local LEO to collect money, especially in some of these smaller towns that use them not to protect and keep people safe - but to rack up an easy quota.
We absolutely *need* traffic laws enforced, and oftentimes they aren't enforced nearly enough. Its just that most local PD aren't enforcing the RIGHT traffic laws and are targeting the easiest to churn out tickets, and seem to have an obsession with making themselves easier and easier to hide in order to catch the soccer moms doing 6 over.
This erodes public trust in the police and makes it feel like they're just there to "trick" and catch people, instead of their intended purpose which is safety. If the intended purpose was simply making their presence known around every corner so everyone would obey traffic laws in fear of the penalty, they'd want to be as bright and obvious as possible. Not this route they're taking where they have these invisible decals and non-typical vehicles.
I could go on and on about this, and I am in law enforcement myself. It almost brings me to a rage when considering what these local police have done to ruin the reputation and erode public trust of law enforcement.
I'm not a patrol officer, or I would singlehandedly focus on non-blinker users, left lane cruisers, and paper/no tag vehicles - over people going slightly over the speed limit.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:38 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
They are revenue model for too many bullshite like towns and counties
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:41 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Mostly true, especially in small towns. Police will always make up some excuse to search your car, whether legit or not.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:42 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Well Grumpy, that is kind of Dopey. We have too much traffic at too high speed not to have traffic laws. Running lights, stop signs is a good way to get people killed. Our roads are designed with vertical and horizontal curves for certain velocities and exceeding those can be fatal for someone.
No, the primary purpose is safety taking into account stopping distances, perception and reaction time and sight distances. Now maybe some officers abuse the traffic stop but the design guidelines and signing are for safety, not for searches.
Are FAA flight rules for circumventing the fourth? Boating rules? Railroad crossings? Rules in horse racing? Limits on Indy cars?
No, same thing. Safety.
No, the primary purpose is safety taking into account stopping distances, perception and reaction time and sight distances. Now maybe some officers abuse the traffic stop but the design guidelines and signing are for safety, not for searches.
Are FAA flight rules for circumventing the fourth? Boating rules? Railroad crossings? Rules in horse racing? Limits on Indy cars?
No, same thing. Safety.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:45 pm to Nosevens
quote:
No way we should be required to stop at a red light to allow flow from another direction under penalties for not doing so.
There can be a middle ground where regulatory infractions can be enforced but not used as an elevation point to greater crimes.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:46 pm to SallysHuman
I can turn left at a stop sign after I stop.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:54 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
I can turn left at a stop sign after I stop.
True... hmm... I think you might have a point!
Although there are places and states you can't turn right on red either.
THIS would have been a good example for Grumpy to offer up for debate!
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:00 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Are inspection stickers considered a traffic violation ?
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:01 pm to Nosevens
weak attempt at something = so weak I don't even get your point.
The OP has a point - too many small communities do use any sort of 'infraction' to stop and then 'notice' something suspicious, and then search.
Not often - but way too often.
I think there should be some sort of 'danger factor' involved with any stop exclusively for traffic "violations." Of course there should be some upper limits that are not merely a traffic violation but a 'public endangerment' type charge.
There is zero reason why rigid enforcement of the "letter of the law" should always be given a ticket - HOWEVER - I would not object to 'borderline' situations getting a warning.
The OP has a point - too many small communities do use any sort of 'infraction' to stop and then 'notice' something suspicious, and then search.
Not often - but way too often.
I think there should be some sort of 'danger factor' involved with any stop exclusively for traffic "violations." Of course there should be some upper limits that are not merely a traffic violation but a 'public endangerment' type charge.
There is zero reason why rigid enforcement of the "letter of the law" should always be given a ticket - HOWEVER - I would not object to 'borderline' situations getting a warning.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:04 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
So, admit it, you are a Sovereign Citizen?? The 4th Amendment is their bible. And still lose in court every time.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:29 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
confiscate property they otherwise couldn't have...........and create a default tax revenue stream they otherwise couldn't have passed.
All of this because they ran a stop sign? crossed the fog line? failed to signal?
Maybe it was the cocaine, bulk currency and/or smuggled bodies they recovered that led to your scree,
Popular
Back to top

16








