8 ms·

Frustrating? Yes. Shocking? No. Did anyone really believe that taking a job as a police officer somehow suppressed these people's natural desire to drive fast?

Frustrating? Yes. Shocking? No. Did anyone really believe that taking a job as a police officer somehow suppressed these people's natural desire to drive fast? Hell, that's probably what make them join the force in the first place. Sure, it's irresponsible and illegal for off-duty officers to speed, but it's also irresponsible and illegal for regular citizens to speed, and yet that doesn't seem to stop them from doing it. Why would you expect the cops to be any different? Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Being a police officer is a job. Unless you wanna have robots do it instead, people are going to do what people are going to do.

yew 13y ago
Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Yes! Of course! Being an officer may be 'just a job', but in practice the hat doesn't come off. Which is the entire point - police officers occupy a particular position in society regardless of whether or not they're wearing a badge at the moment. That's not the same thing as saying that I'm surprised that they're still human, though.
- talmand 13y ago
  I agree. An off-duty cop is just off the clock. By the way the news reads there really is no such thing as an off-duty cop. A cop is always on the job. Describing a cop as off-duty suggests that he suddenly becomes a normal citizen like everyone else once the clock is punched at the end of the shift. But I'm willing to bet an off-duty cop has no issues with using police powers, if necessary, while off the clock.
jere 13y ago
>Sure, it's irresponsible and illegal for off-duty officers to speed, but it's also irresponsible and illegal for regular citizens to speed, and yet that doesn't seem to stop them from doing it. Why would you expect the cops to be any different? Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? a) A higher standard? Sure. I suppose I'm extremely naive, but if you spend your day punishing people for doing X, I think you should have an appreciation for why you shouldn't be doing X or at least be a role model for not doing X. b) I actually wouldn't guess that, among the general populace, the majority of people regularly speed at 90-130. Again, that's probably naive. I drive like an elderly person, so I may be biased.
- samolang 13y ago
  Regarding a (at least in the US) I think a big part of the problem is a system of laws that people generally agree is unjust (i.e. the drug laws)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    In my mostly uninformed opinion, drug laws are a huge part of the problem in terms of public interfacing with the police. That said, while people may complain about particular speed limits, I don't think very many would call a cap somewhere below 120mph "unjust".
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      The maximum safe speed really depends on the road, current traffic, weather, and the capabilities of the car. I could imagine some locations permitting safe travel at 120+. Maybe the revenue currently earned from speeding tickets can be gained by offering a "license to speed" instead, with increased driver training, insurance, and vehicle inspection requirements.
      - talmand 13y ago
        You can't go by the capabilities of the individual car. You have to also account for the capabilities of the other cars on the road. If a Ferrari is speeding along at 120 MPH, which might be easily within its capabilities, there will be problems when it encounters the small Hyundai that can only achieve 90 comfortably. Plus there's the issue of driver's ability as well. Can you look in your side mirror and successfully gauge the speed of the car that's a good distance behind you to know whether you can safely change lanes? If the car is going at a known max speed, of which you are probably aware of as you are likely at that speed yourself, then you can change but if the car is going two to three times faster than you I would imagine changing lanes would be a bad idea. Also, how would the police be able to judge the things you describe looking at your car driving by at 120 MPH while everyone else is driving in the 80s? The officer would have to constantly be pulling these people over to check their "licensed to speed" status. How would the officer be able to judge the conditions of your car as you breeze by? Sticker on the bumper? Better be a huge freaking sticker when you are flying through traffic. Speed limits are decided upon on the safety of most cars for the general area and expectations of traffic conditions, not the capabilities of the cars or drivers on the road.
ja2ke 13y ago
I think the issue here is that off-duty police officers speed aggressively with the knowledge that, if caught, they will be almost certainly let off the hook due to their job. That makes the situation completely different than people with any other "just a job" job.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Or analogous to any other abuse of position.
  - sambeau 13y ago
    As gate-keepers to the law the police are in a very special position. How can we expect them to investigate abuse of position if they are abusing their position?
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Well then, let them stop pretending that they're looking out for our safety when they put up a speed trap. If you want to talk about having more reasonable road markings, speed limits, and fines for speeding that's great. It's a conversation that we need to have. But to have a bunch of guys driving around like jerks, on and off duty, extracting a tax from the working stiffs is an insult, and nobody should be surprised that the cops get little sympathy. > Unless you wanna have robots do it instead Not really. It's been shown time and again that greedy authorities will compromise on public safety to optimize profit. And, machines tend to have no discretion. Nor is any applied by the authorities. If you show up to an intersection at two am, with nobody in sight, stop, look and proceed safely through a red light, you get the same citation that some jerk gets who blows through on a busy day.
- fyi80 13y ago
  > And, machines tend to have no discretion. This a feature, that protects and racism and classism.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    > that protects and racism You've got a point. >and classism. Meh, I'm not so sure about that one, and really, in both cases it depends where the machines are sited.
    - pc86 13y ago
      By that logic it doesn't protect against racism either.
- talmand 13y ago
  My reasoning in that speed traps are for revenue generation instead of safety is over the thought that a visible police presence on the road would more likely cause people to slow down and obey traffic laws. Hiding to ambush a speeder is the same tactic used by a highwayman out for money.
joseph_cooney 13y ago
I would have thought dealing with the consequences of speeding in their jobs (notifying families of the death of loved ones, seeing the terrible injuries caused) would have stopped them. I know a few people who work in that area and that stuff stays with them. For example - they've assured me I should never buy a motor bike.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  (Shrug) There aren't any "consequences of speeding." If you hit something or kill somebody, you were doing something wrong besides speeding.
  - eru 13y ago
    People are making small mistakes all the time. Lower speed gives you more time to correct your own and other people's mistakes.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Hiring a professional driver would increase safety a bit. Even better, hire a professional driver and pay him/her to drive slowly.
  - biot 13y ago
    Yes, you were doing something wrong like not understanding physics involving the coefficient of friction, acceleration formulas, and the inability to see through solid objects to know that a child is about to step out on the road in front of your car at a distance where you could have stopped had you not been speeding.
    - eru 13y ago
      Also, even if the kid (or someone else) is completely at fault, they shouldn't have to die for their mistakes.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
darkarmani 13y ago
> Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Only if they get "professional courtesy" every time they get pulled over, unlike the rest of us that get traffic tickets.
glesica 13y ago
> Hell, that's probably what make them join the force in the first place. This. If we believe that people will tend to behave in accordance with their incentives (and we all do, because we're all good capitalists here) then this is a virtual certainty. Cops get paid X per year. So, all things being equal, some number of people who think it is worthwhile to do the job for X per year will sign up. A few will take the job because they want to help people, so they are willing to work for less than they would at some other job. At the same time, and in the same vein, a few will take the job because it allows them "perks" like hurting people and generally breaking the law without consequence. This is why it is so, so important to hold police to a higher standard, because in the long run we want more of the "want to help people" type and fewer of the "want to break the law" type.
ajtaylor 13y ago
> Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? In a word, yes! I expect a judge to engage in ethical behaviour when not behind the bench, a politician to tell the truth (as laughable as that is) and so on. Sure, cops are human but they should also know that by virtue of their position they are much more visible than the ordinary citizen and act accordingly. Surely you can see the hypocrisy of a cop giving tickets for speeding when they get away with the very same behaviour. Maybe I'm old fashioned, I think cops should not be able to say "Do as I say, not as I do."
mmanfrin 13y ago
Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Absolutely.
yolonoexception 13y ago
I believe in the old lead by example. As a police officer they are obligated to follow the very laws they enforce. If they cannot do that then they should not be a officer in the first place.
reeses 13y ago
I wouldn't go for "higher standard" but I would say they should be "better informed" about the consequences of driving recklessly. I have talked to a lot of state patrolmen in CA and WA (USA) and they were cured of using their awesome driving schools for personal advantage after coming up on their first gruesome accident. Especially if said involved children. People tend to think they're "exceptional" in some way, though, and will dismiss the risk by thinking that they are better trained and more aware of the factors that lead to accidents.

yew 13y ago

Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Yes! Of course! Being an officer may be 'just a job', but in practice the hat doesn't come off. Which is the entire point - police officers occupy a particular position in society regardless of whether or not they're wearing a badge at the moment. That's not the same thing as saying that I'm surprised that they're still human, though.

talmand 13y ago
I agree. An off-duty cop is just off the clock. By the way the news reads there really is no such thing as an off-duty cop. A cop is always on the job. Describing a cop as off-duty suggests that he suddenly becomes a normal citizen like everyone else once the clock is punched at the end of the shift. But I'm willing to bet an off-duty cop has no issues with using police powers, if necessary, while off the clock.

jere 13y ago

>Sure, it's irresponsible and illegal for off-duty officers to speed, but it's also irresponsible and illegal for regular citizens to speed, and yet that doesn't seem to stop them from doing it. Why would you expect the cops to be any different? Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? a) A higher standard? Sure. I suppose I'm extremely naive, but if you spend your day punishing people for doing X, I think you should have an appreciation for why you shouldn't be doing X or at least be a role model for not doing X. b) I actually wouldn't guess that, among the general populace, the majority of people regularly speed at 90-130. Again, that's probably naive. I drive like an elderly person, so I may be biased.

samolang 13y ago
Regarding a (at least in the US) I think a big part of the problem is a system of laws that people generally agree is unjust (i.e. the drug laws)
- dllthomas 13y ago
  In my mostly uninformed opinion, drug laws are a huge part of the problem in terms of public interfacing with the police. That said, while people may complain about particular speed limits, I don't think very many would call a cap somewhere below 120mph "unjust".
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    The maximum safe speed really depends on the road, current traffic, weather, and the capabilities of the car. I could imagine some locations permitting safe travel at 120+. Maybe the revenue currently earned from speeding tickets can be gained by offering a "license to speed" instead, with increased driver training, insurance, and vehicle inspection requirements.
    - talmand 13y ago
      You can't go by the capabilities of the individual car. You have to also account for the capabilities of the other cars on the road. If a Ferrari is speeding along at 120 MPH, which might be easily within its capabilities, there will be problems when it encounters the small Hyundai that can only achieve 90 comfortably. Plus there's the issue of driver's ability as well. Can you look in your side mirror and successfully gauge the speed of the car that's a good distance behind you to know whether you can safely change lanes? If the car is going at a known max speed, of which you are probably aware of as you are likely at that speed yourself, then you can change but if the car is going two to three times faster than you I would imagine changing lanes would be a bad idea. Also, how would the police be able to judge the things you describe looking at your car driving by at 120 MPH while everyone else is driving in the 80s? The officer would have to constantly be pulling these people over to check their "licensed to speed" status. How would the officer be able to judge the conditions of your car as you breeze by? Sticker on the bumper? Better be a huge freaking sticker when you are flying through traffic. Speed limits are decided upon on the safety of most cars for the general area and expectations of traffic conditions, not the capabilities of the cars or drivers on the road.

ja2ke 13y ago

I think the issue here is that off-duty police officers speed aggressively with the knowledge that, if caught, they will be almost certainly let off the hook due to their job. That makes the situation completely different than people with any other "just a job" job.

dllthomas 13y ago
Or analogous to any other abuse of position.
- sambeau 13y ago
  As gate-keepers to the law the police are in a very special position. How can we expect them to investigate abuse of position if they are abusing their position?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Well then, let them stop pretending that they're looking out for our safety when they put up a speed trap. If you want to talk about having more reasonable road markings, speed limits, and fines for speeding that's great. It's a conversation that we need to have. But to have a bunch of guys driving around like jerks, on and off duty, extracting a tax from the working stiffs is an insult, and nobody should be surprised that the cops get little sympathy. > Unless you wanna have robots do it instead Not really. It's been shown time and again that greedy authorities will compromise on public safety to optimize profit. And, machines tend to have no discretion. Nor is any applied by the authorities. If you show up to an intersection at two am, with nobody in sight, stop, look and proceed safely through a red light, you get the same citation that some jerk gets who blows through on a busy day.

fyi80 13y ago
> And, machines tend to have no discretion. This a feature, that protects and racism and classism.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  > that protects and racism You've got a point. >and classism. Meh, I'm not so sure about that one, and really, in both cases it depends where the machines are sited.
  - pc86 13y ago
    By that logic it doesn't protect against racism either.
talmand 13y ago
My reasoning in that speed traps are for revenue generation instead of safety is over the thought that a visible police presence on the road would more likely cause people to slow down and obey traffic laws. Hiding to ambush a speeder is the same tactic used by a highwayman out for money.

joseph_cooney 13y ago

I would have thought dealing with the consequences of speeding in their jobs (notifying families of the death of loved ones, seeing the terrible injuries caused) would have stopped them. I know a few people who work in that area and that stuff stays with them. For example - they've assured me I should never buy a motor bike.

CamperBob2 13y ago
(Shrug) There aren't any "consequences of speeding." If you hit something or kill somebody, you were doing something wrong besides speeding.
- eru 13y ago
  People are making small mistakes all the time. Lower speed gives you more time to correct your own and other people's mistakes.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Hiring a professional driver would increase safety a bit. Even better, hire a professional driver and pay him/her to drive slowly.
- biot 13y ago
  Yes, you were doing something wrong like not understanding physics involving the coefficient of friction, acceleration formulas, and the inability to see through solid objects to know that a child is about to step out on the road in front of your car at a distance where you could have stopped had you not been speeding.
  - eru 13y ago
    Also, even if the kid (or someone else) is completely at fault, they shouldn't have to die for their mistakes.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago

darkarmani 13y ago

> Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Only if they get "professional courtesy" every time they get pulled over, unlike the rest of us that get traffic tickets.

glesica 13y ago

> Hell, that's probably what make them join the force in the first place. This. If we believe that people will tend to behave in accordance with their incentives (and we all do, because we're all good capitalists here) then this is a virtual certainty. Cops get paid X per year. So, all things being equal, some number of people who think it is worthwhile to do the job for X per year will sign up. A few will take the job because they want to help people, so they are willing to work for less than they would at some other job. At the same time, and in the same vein, a few will take the job because it allows them "perks" like hurting people and generally breaking the law without consequence. This is why it is so, so important to hold police to a higher standard, because in the long run we want more of the "want to help people" type and fewer of the "want to break the law" type.

ajtaylor 13y ago

> Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? In a word, yes! I expect a judge to engage in ethical behaviour when not behind the bench, a politician to tell the truth (as laughable as that is) and so on. Sure, cops are human but they should also know that by virtue of their position they are much more visible than the ordinary citizen and act accordingly. Surely you can see the hypocrisy of a cop giving tickets for speeding when they get away with the very same behaviour. Maybe I'm old fashioned, I think cops should not be able to say "Do as I say, not as I do."

mmanfrin 13y ago

Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Absolutely.

yolonoexception 13y ago

I believe in the old lead by example. As a police officer they are obligated to follow the very laws they enforce. If they cannot do that then they should not be a officer in the first place.

reeses 13y ago

I wouldn't go for "higher standard" but I would say they should be "better informed" about the consequences of driving recklessly. I have talked to a lot of state patrolmen in CA and WA (USA) and they were cured of using their awesome driving schools for personal advantage after coming up on their first gruesome accident. Especially if said involved children. People tend to think they're "exceptional" in some way, though, and will dismiss the risk by thinking that they are better trained and more aware of the factors that lead to accidents.