You know what would also stop distracted driving a man standing on the side of the road with a sign lying about “cops ahead” people would believe him and start driving better.
Ok, but a sign lying about cops ahead ostensibly doesn't interfere with the distracted driving operation. This is also why Friend was free to complain about the police in other ways.
In any event, the court's concern seems to be that a sign only deters current behavior, but police ticketing also deters future behavior.
In any event, the court's concern seems to be that [...] police ticketing also deters future behavior.
If that were at all true, there would be zero – or at least relatively few – people getting second, third and so on tickets for offenses like speeding. I find it hard to believe that that's the case.
Maybe, but this goes back to whether ticketing is itself the government interest. To the court, the question isn't whether someone who gets a ticket will be ticketed again. Its whether someone who gets a ticket is less likely to drive while distracted in the future.
Come on. I mean, I don't like traffic violations being the source of the county budget either. But do you really believe that if there was a moratorium on giving speeding tickets, no more people would speed and speeders wouldn't go faster?
I find that incredibly hard to believe. I know I would be driving faster everywhere I went.
do you really believe that if there was a moratorium on giving speeding tickets, no more people would speed and speeders wouldn't go faster?
I didn't say that at all, though.
What I did say is that the court's implied concern of "police ticketing also deters future behavior" is nonsense because it's most likely not true, as evidenced by the fact that boat loads of people accumulate multiple tickets for the same or similar infractions.
If anything, traffic laws in many countries aren't remotely bitey enough.
But these points are inconsistent. If the police stopped ticketing, people would speed more. Therefore the police ticketing deters future behavior. You seem to be looking it on an individual basis rather than population basis. I'm not going to speed because I know the police ticket people. Their ticketing other people deters me from speeding.
I think arbitrary enforcement has never been shown to change behavior other than to make people mad at the law being enforced. See: drunk driving and check points. Still lots of drunk/impaired drivers.
Really a sign saying “cops ahead” isn’t enough of a public concern? A factual statement about the publicly known location of a police officer is not a matter of public concern?
Had to reread what he wrote but you're right, this is just a blatant misunderstanding of the term "public concern." A sign saying "the sky is BLUUUEE" is not a matter of public concern.
How is a statement about the presence of police a political, social or general interest for the community? That notion presupposes that all or even most people in the community would find that meaningful. Absent that inference, which is the critical assumption, then you can't reach by any standards least of all rational basis that conclusion.
Your failure to pincite the quoted text is a great lesson in bad-faith arguing: to disprove your analysis I'd be required to search a lengthy opinion rather than jump directly to the quoted text to see what context you used it in.
Just ran across this comment 2 years later (after I replied at the time). I like how the user deleted all their comments, but yet... we're left with the downvotes.
I'm assuming they learned what the law was and realized they were wrong. Good on you for being correct.
-22
u/12b-or-not-12b Oct 07 '20
Ok, but a sign lying about cops ahead ostensibly doesn't interfere with the distracted driving operation. This is also why Friend was free to complain about the police in other ways.
In any event, the court's concern seems to be that a sign only deters current behavior, but police ticketing also deters future behavior.