> Surely officers are still able to perform traffic stops Literally the whole point of what I proposed, is they wouldn't be able to stop for anything less than

> Surely officers are still able to perform traffic stops Literally the whole point of what I proposed, is they wouldn't be able to stop for anything less than a major moving traffic violation. Which has a legal definition. They include things like hit and runs and vehicular manslaughter. It's not like a crooked cop can't make up a major traffic violation (DUI could be "made up" by claiming "they were swerving") but the burden of proof is higher, and more importantly the average driver does not commit them in the process of driving. An incredibly large part of the problem is cops don't have to lie about minor traffic violations, people commit them constantly in the process. Changing lanes during turns, coming to a 1 mph stop at a stop sign, speeding (even well below reckless driving speeds), even touching the tip of the dividing line during a wide turn can be grounds to be pulled over The kneejerk is to "victim blame" but it's reached the point that if you don't violate them in some cases you can cause accidents. That's exactly what happened with the first SDCs in the wild, humans are so hard wired to do some of these things, when someone follows the rules perfectly people crash into them... Like I said, it literally turns traffic laws into effective enablement of stop and frisk any time you're in a vehicle. Cops have said it before on record, they know if they follow someone long enough they will commit a traffic violation of some sort, driving laws have all sorts of dense corner cases that a determined cop can use to pull you over. And they can stretch the definition since the barrier to breaking them is so minor that fighting them is almost impossible. If you say you came to complete stop and the cop says you were rolling, it doesn't mean you were speeding through a stop sign, they can claim you were going at near dead still and are mistaken. That's it. Even if they're wrong, you're already stopped, you're free to try and get recourse from the courts, but the stop has already happened. > I’d rather solve the actual problems than automate authoritarianism. I'd rather solve actual problems rather than act like the complete removal of racial bias is going to come about from going rawr rawr about authoritarianism. Pulling people over for speeding isn't authoritarianism, but pulling people over so you can try and impinge upon their rights based on their socioeconomic status or race under the guise of speeding is. > Cameras are biased. It doesn’t matter to me if they are less biased. Well that's the core of why we won't agree. Those weren't hypotheticals, I'm black, I've had a gun unholstered on me because my glovebox wasn't where a cop thought it'd be, I know a speed camera wouldn't do that. Removing traffic stops for minor traffic violations would leave many fewer people ending up in the legal system over stupid reasons, take cops out of situations where they apparently fear for their lives, take away a powerful tool for biased police forces. That's why they're mortified by the idea besides constantly making noise about how dangerous it is for them and how it justifies their behavior, like what I went through.