3 ms·
Here's my thought: the only thing that will save us from this insanity is driverless cars. When the Constitution was written, there weren't cars. You walked
by hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
Here's my thought: the only thing that will save us from this insanity is driverless cars.
When the Constitution was written, there weren't cars. You walked or rode a horse. There were no licenses or insurance, there were no DUIs. There was no legal requirement to prove that you were legally entitled to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
These stops seem to largely depend on our relationship with driving cars. The necessary evil of DUI checkpoints is obviously a crutch they're leaning on heavily.
At a minimum, self-driving cars will force them to work a bit harder to scheme up clever legal interpretations allowing them to continue operating.
- pjc50 8y agoDriverless cars won't save you, and this is described as an immigration issue. The police will end up with the same remote access to cars as they have to phones.
- slededit 8y ago> necessary evil of DUI checkpoints WA doesn't have them (against the constitution), and it gets along just fine. In fact with the NHTSA's own data Washington's ratio of traffic fatalities attributed to alcohol is closely inline with states that do have checkpoints. [1] The evidence simply doesn't show that DUI checkpoints are necessary or effective. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812450 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8124...
- StudentStuff 8y agoSimilar wrt undercover police cars, we have some restrictions that make 'em much less common: https://reason.com/blog/2014/10/20/washington-man-busts-cop-in-unmarked-car https://reason.com/blog/2014/10/20/washington-man-busts-cop-...
- xkcd-sucks 8y agoYeah, they'll arrest the car and leave your sorry ass hanging out on an Arizona highway