By on October 31, 2013

thp10

The murder rate is up in Tennessee for the second year in a row but the state highway patrol has a solution: spending hundreds of dollars per hour to catch drivers who are texting.


It’s been going on for a while, but Tennessee is still eighteen (or at least ten) wheels-a-rollin’ against people with the temerity to send messages about ravioli and formuoli and whatnot from behind the wheel. There’s some mild irony in play here: The federal government, in its eternal wisdom, doesn’t much care for Tennessee’s texting-and-driving law, because it isn’t strict enough. The feds want the state to bust drivers who endanger lives by texting when the car is not in motion. Why that’s dangerous to anyone isn’t quite clear. I suppose that if you were texting while stopped and the light turned green and you missed it as a result, and the guy behind you was a top-ranking member of the Los Angeles Crips, somebody might be in danger.

The good news for daredevils who want to stare Death directly in the face is that the THP semi-truck is well-marked, including “State Highway” on the mandatory tinted-Lexan bug deflector, so if you get caught it’s probably a sign that you really aren’t paying enough attention to the road.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

75 Comments on “Tennessee Continues To Get Semi-Tough On Texters...”


  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    Along with the OBDII device that insurance companies are using, next there will be an app that tracks your smartphone use while in motion and within range of the OBDII device.

    • 0 avatar
      Cymen

      What if I’m a passenger? That won’t work.

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        Presumably only the primary driver’s phone would be linked to the OBD device in their car and only their car. I never said it would disable the phone, just track your usage. Now if you are a passenger in your own car, you could just unplug the device.

        It’s clearly a complicated way to save a whole $5/mo on insurance.

    • 0 avatar

      Have the people police each other.

      #1 offer a $25 check to anyone who reports a driver texting by emailing or texting their license plate.

      #2 put the driver on defense by forcing them to produce their phone record to prove they weren’t.

      #3 ???

      #4. Profit!!!

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Yeah, think of the busybody harassment possibilities!

        All those reports requiring the alleged perpetrator to dig up phone records and show ‘em to the State, because “some dude” said they were being naughty.

        (And of course, that doesn’t stop perp from checking, oh, Facebook while driving, because “phone records” won’t show that.)

        No, no, no.

      • 0 avatar
        tooloud10

        If you don’t already completely understand why this is a bad idea, I’m not sure I’ll be able to explain it. We have enough busybodies in the world.

        • 0 avatar
          JimC2

          Never mind explaining it- just think of the children! Why won’t anyone think of the children? If it saves just one life…………

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            This concept reminds me of the billboard here in MI on I-75 that wanted you to report distracted driving by texting. What really gets me is that the genius that came up with it probably makes more money in a year then me for coming up with these ideas.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    Marked or not, if a semi-truck tried to pull me over there is a decent chance that shots would be fired.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    Now that the Tennessee highway patrol is using semi tractors it is officially time for the next Smokey and the Bandit.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Junior, if you can’t catch the Snowman in a semmmmmmmmm-eye tractor, then I’ll need to slap your momma for messing up the perfectly good seed I gave her.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Let the stupid comments begin

    Or , continue .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    Texting affects each motorist multiple times per day, murder does not. I am all for busting the b sh*t out of texting drivers. But using a semi is giov spending run amnok, a worse sin than texting, and one or evena few trucks wont put a dent in it.

    Perhaps if cops put less effort into speeding 5mph over, and more effort into real road saftey issues things might be better.

    But yeah the texting thing is a scourge, how many times do you see a car doing 50 in the left lane barely in control, its frightening. And yeah sitting cars at green light might not be that dangerous but it sure is agrravating.

    Do we have stats yet, is texting and driving up there with DUI in terms of accidnets.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Impairment is supposed to be as bad or worse than drunk driving but texting hasn’t proven to be a significant factor in accidents.

      Now I don’t know if the former was provided by Drunk Drivers Against Mad Mothers and the later provided by Mad Mothers Against Drunk Drivers but that is apparently how this all shakes out.

      • 0 avatar
        mikedt

        Given the number of drivers I see drifting across lanes (far more now than I ever saw during even the heyday of drunk driving) while staring at their crotches, I’d be surprised if texting isn’t a huge contributor to accidents. Could it be that in the event of an accident the cell phone isn’t the first thing the cops go for? Or the first thing the victim goes for after the accident and therefore muddying the “evidence”?

  • avatar
    Joe McKinney

    Here is a link to a newspaper article with more info on this truck.
    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/24/tennessee-highway-patrol-using-semi-trucks/

    According to the article, the truck is used to spot a variety of moving violations including texting while driving, seatbelt violations and open container violations. The truck is a spotter vehicle only. When the truck’s driver spots a violation he radios the info to a Trooper in a patrol car who makes the stop and issues a ticket.

    • 0 avatar
      aerojammin

      http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/21776472/local-tn-troopers-ride-semi-to-cacth-drivers-texting

      Just to clarify, the semi driver does not spot violations as he is busy driving the rig. There is a second trooper in the passenger seat spotting and radioing ahead.

      Also, the semi was confiscated in a drug bust so the THP didn’t buy a semi (for those who are thinking they did).

      That all being said. I think that just using a few of their unmarked SUVs could provide almost the same level of monitoring and no appear so excessive.

      • 0 avatar
        Joe McKinney

        Thanks for the clarification and additional info.

        Some states do spend extravagantly to enforce basic traffic laws. For decades Florida has used aircraft for speed limit enforcement. From what I have read, the FHP currently has one plane assigned to each of its ten troops. This program is cost effective as the revenue from the tickets issued far exceeds the cost of operating the aircraft.

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          This spring I was in Florida doing basic flight training. One of the maneuvers is “turns across a road” meant to show the ability to control aircraft attitude and to compensate for wind drift relative to fixed points on the ground. Of course, we used the Florida Turnpike as the road and my instructor joked that we were slowing traffic with our presence.

          • 0 avatar
            Joe McKinney

            On a couple of occasions I have seen these FHP aircraft at work. They circle the highway at around 1,000 feet and are clearly visible to drivers who are paying attention.

            The pilots use a stopwatch to time vehicles as they pass between lines painted on the road. When they clock a violator they radio the vehicle’s description and speed to a Trooper on the ground.

            Drivers who do not notice the plane will not know anything is up until shortly after they pass the second line and see all the patrol cars.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Maine does this too – they had one up just the other Saturday morning on the turnpike. I rolled through in the Rover hauling a big rented trailer right at the speed limit, so no big deal. They were doing a FINE business that morning, I can’t imagine it was not very profitable considering what speeding tickets cost in this state.

          That truck is bound to be lots cheaper than an airplane to run.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      It seems like the open container violation would be a stretch unless the driver is drinking from a bottle. It would be pretty difficult to determine what kind of can the driver is holding looking down from the truck cab.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        It’s probable cause to pull the car over and have the other trooper take a quick look. If it is a Pepsi, on your way assuming nothing else is amiss. But the type of idiot who drinks a beer in his car tooling down the highway is the same type of idiot who has warrants, or no license, or pot in the car, or any number of other bonus violations.

        A cop in my hometown caught a triple murderer before he got out of town 30 years ago because the cop stopped him for having a taillight out and spotted the blood on his clothes. Crazy uncle killed Mom, Dad, and young son, and set the house of fire. The kid was in my class in school.

        • 0 avatar
          tooloud10

          Sorry, but no–seeing any kind of can that a driver is drinking from is not probable cause. They can try to say that it is, but it’s not. They don’t have carte blanche to detain you like this.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Well, you are entitled to your opinion but the law would beg to differ with you. MAYBE there is a judge somewhere that would toss a case based on this, but I think you would be hard pressed to find one. The level of probable cause needed to pull you over is MINIMAL. Afterall, all the cop really needs to say is he thought you were a bit unsteady in your lane, and it is your word against his. “We think he had an open container” is a lot stronger case than that. I suppose you could try to refuse to give your license and such, but good luck with that. Traffic matters are civil infractions in most jurisdictions, the standard of probable cause is VERY low.

            I’ve been pulled over for drinking an IBC Root Beer in the car when I was a kid. Cop saw it was not an actual beer, did a quick check of my license, insurance and registration, and I was on my way with “have a nice day and stay safe” in about 3 minutes. I’ve also dropped a cellular dime on some idiots who WERE drinking Budweiser in the car while driving up the Maine Turnpike – there happened to be a cop just a mile or so up the road. He pulled them right over.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Probable cause isn’t required for traffic stops. Reasonable suspicion, which is a far lower standard, is all that is required.

            You have very few Fourth Amendment rights in your car. That being said, I don’t see how a cop could reasonably suspect that a can of soda contains something stronger without some other supporting evidence.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    If they are actually being so fair about it, Jack, we ought to be celebrating them not berating them. This is the only program I have heard about designed to catch people actually involved in dangerous activity.

    The comments made it worthwhile though.

  • avatar
    Turkina

    I’m cool with the semi being used to scout out seatbelt violations. If someone just so happens to be texting or drinking a beer when the officer looks over, that’s just bonus. One question though. If the officer is looking into other vehicles while driving, then operating radio equipment, wouldn’t that be considered distracted driving as well? And the consequences of his actions will be much worse, due to the size of the vehicle.

    I had a teenager in a Civic behind me for a few miles w/o a seatbelt yesterday. I wanted him to get pulled over, just so he’d realize wearing his seatbelt was a good idea to make his life last a lot longer.

    • 0 avatar
      OneAlpha

      It’s not your business, or mine, if SOMEONE ELSE chooses not to wear a seatbelt.

      Every time I read a comment like this, demanding that people be punished for their own good, I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis’ quote:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      Put your own seatbelt on if you wish, but leave the rest of us alone.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        It’s illegal in Tennessee, which does make it the business of the people of that state.

        If the people of Tennessee don’t like the law, then it’s up to their legislators to change the law, or for its courts to overturn the law.

        • 0 avatar
          OneAlpha

          And while they’re getting that law overturned, the tyranny of busybodies sullies the land.

          But you’re half right. Being the law, it’s the business of The State, not The People.

          Remember, those two entities aren’t synonymous.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The legislators were elected by the voters.

            If the voters don’t like the law, then they can demand that their legislators repeal it. If the legislators won’t bend to popular will, then they can be replaced.

            The people of Tennessee apparently don’t share your concerns. If you want to change their minds, then go convince them that you’re right. Don’t blame your opponents for having the audacity to disagree with you.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            You happened to have left out lobbying influence, corruption and other special interests. I can hardly blame Alpha for being cynical.

            it’s a shame that when bad laws do get passed, they will have inevitable victims before they are overturned.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It gets to be a bit old that some people whine about “corruption” whenever they don’t get their way.

            The vast majority of drivers wear seat belts. I doubt that they share the belief of one guy on the internet that seat belt requirements are oppressive.

            If you hold a minority view, then go sell it and turn it into a majority view. If people disagree with you, then either change their minds or else act like a grownup and accept that your views aren’t widely held.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            In the end, its still the voters. The whole campaign money thing is a red herring. No matter how much is spent convincing me to vote for Bob, it is my responsibility to decide if Bob is the best candidate.

            Same for lobbying. Once Bob is elected, he has to do his job, not sell his vote. I don’t believe that its the lobbyists that change people when they get to Washington. I think it’s the other politicians and the systems they have allowed to develop.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “If you hold a minority view, then go sell it and turn it into a majority view. If people disagree with you, then either change their minds or else act like a grownup and accept that your views aren’t widely held”

            I can accept this as a citizen and as an adult. However, after seeing it first hand in my own political involvements, lobbying and underhanded contributions can certainly dilute the will of the people.

            Of course it’s still the job of the people to fight back and elect people who aren’t crooked, but I don’t fault them for whining about it or decrying it unjust. Whether that be in general or to their politicians.

            In cases with laws like these, the insurance insdustry often has a big hand in turning police officers into their personal army.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’m not a fan of paid lobbyists, either, as they usual advance the interests of special interests that can and do conflict with the general welfare.

            But in the case of seat belt laws, there is no such conflict. Traffic fatalities impose enormous costs on others, and it makes sense to reduce them. On a cost-benefit basis, seat belt laws win — they impose virtually no cost, yet produce considerable benefit.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            On an cost/benefit level, I agree that wearing a seat belt is in everyone’s best interest.

            Philosophically, I don’t think the simple act of not wearing a belt should be enforced with fines and fees. Since most people already accept the use of safety belts whether or not there is a law in place, I can accept the insignificant costs of a few people taking themselves out of the gene pool as the savings over a lifetime could be arguably greater. That is, if it could be shown that seat belt laws increase seat belt usage. I wonder if the laws were repealed whether there would actually be more bodies through windshields.

          • 0 avatar
            bunkie

            The obvious parallel is the successful effort to overturn helmet laws. With enough pressure and organization, these “for your own good” laws can be changed.

            Having said that, I prefer to live in helmet law states because, generally, the insurance is cheaper. I have no problem with other riders not wearing helmets, but I help pay for that right even though I always ride with my full-face helmet being an AGATT* kind of guy.

            * All Gear All The Time

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I have no problem with other riders not wearing helmets, but I help pay for that right even though I always ride with my full-face helmet being an AGATT* kind of guy.”

            You’re very generous. Personally, that’s the sort of subsidy that I could do without.

            As I noted in another post, I would be willing to allow some of these things if the Darwin award candidates would cover all of the associated costs. But I don’t see them volunteering to do that (not surprising, as this group lacks the ability to assess or properly price risk), so why should I pay for it?

      • 0 avatar
        Charliej

        OneAlpha, I agree. We need more organ donors, and driving unbelted, you can win a Darwin Award.

        • 0 avatar
          JimC2

          Regarding seatbelt non use and Darwin Awards, my saying (I made this up, but you’re welcome to use it) is “Seatbelts are a leading cause of ejection seat malfunctions. Think twice before you buckle up.”

      • 0 avatar
        snakebit

        For the folks who make a point of not wearing their seatbelts specifically because they don’t want their state telling them what to do. they’re pretty sad. I know these must seem like crass reasons to buckle up, it’s not the general public’s responsibility to pay for the ER to sew you up and pay for a lifetime of rehab and lost wages because you were thrown from the car in an accident, instead of remaining safer inside. It’s also not the preferred duty of local law enforcement to have to knock on the door of your family home to tell them that you were in a car accident, and you’re not coming home.

        If you think about it, there are more people who have a stake in your existence than just you, notably family and friends. Would you be more comfortable with buckling up for them?

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      So the question is, do you really care about the safety of the driver or is it more a matter of having convinced yourself that a belted driver will reduce your costs in the long run?

      For the record, I could care less, I frankly cannot see where it would save me money in the long run ( make money, sure as a shareholder in an insurance company )

      I certainly consider it about as foolish as a rider content will straing bugs through their teeth and the wind in their hair but I file this all under the nosey neighbor syndrome the US unfortunately suffers from.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        “. . .do you really care about the safety of the driver or is it more a matter of having convinced yourself that a belted driver will reduce your costs in the long run?”

        I’m sure for 90% of the people that support seatbelt laws it is the latter. If the person without a seatbelt dies that saves society money. But it is more likley that they will be seriously injured and rushed to the emergency room, without adequate insurance. If they are seriously injured they’re going to become dependent on Social Security even earlier. Plus, if I’m not running a dash cam, and somehow get held liable, I have to worry about my liability to the idiot with no seatbelt.

        That said, seatbelt laws are not my biggest concern, and America, on both sides of the political spectrum, suffers way too much from nosey neighbor syndrome. Hell, only 14 states have same sex marriage, and only two have fully legal (under state law) marijuana.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I used to oppose seat belt laws. Now, I support them because of the costs that the belt avoiders impose on others.

          Driving is ultimately a social activity, and we are obliged as drivers to consider how our actions impact others. And it’s not possible in this society to die a bloody death on a public roadway without imposing a burden on other people who don’t particularly need or deserve that burden.

          • 0 avatar
            OneAlpha

            Yes, yes, and you could make the case that EVERY human activity is ultimately a social one, and so no one must ever be allowed the freedom to make their own choices – because something bad MIGHT happen.

            Please. We’re not “all in this together.”

            Each one of us is responsible only for our own actions, not those of our fellows.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The costs of driving fatalities can be quantified into dollars.

            I wouldn’t necessarily mind if you blew your head off in a belt-free traffic accident if you posted a bond that would pay for the resulting costs. But since you aren’t willing to pony up, then I have no desire whatsoever to subsidize you.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            What Pch101 said.

            You people who feel so burdened by tyranny over seatbelt and helmet laws have two choices:

            1) Insulate everyone else from the excess costs of scraping your sorry corpse off the roadway (or keeping your mangled body alive in the hospital); or

            2) Suck it up and wear the damn helmet or seatbelt.

    • 0 avatar
      Kevin Kluttz

      Why would you want his life to last longer? If he doesn’t care enough about himself to buckle up, imagine the risks he must take…let Darwinism take its course.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Once, just once I wish the newscasters would finish this sentence: “The occupants were thrown from the vehicle.” Here’s the finish: “Because they weren’t wearing their seat belts.” At some point in your wreck, physics takes over and you’re just a projectile.

  • avatar
    dswilly

    I have zero tolerance for texting behind the wheel as someone who got hit from behind by a texting driver at 50 mph while stopped for a light. Sure distractions have always been a part of the equation but this smart-phone obsession is taking it to a new level, and mixing it with high speed heavy machinery is really bad. It’s one thing if you walk into a pole with your face buried in your phone, that’s sad but harmless, usually, and funny. Driving a car into another, not so much.

    • 0 avatar
      snakebit

      Like that age-old question ‘your money or your life?’it seems texters still can’t make up their minds to another question, ‘my life or answering that last text now’. C’mon people, it’s not a trick question.

    • 0 avatar
      prattworks

      I think that texting and driving should carry the same penalties and insurance ramifications as drunk driving. I live in Portland, Oregon – where the practice is illegal, and on my daily commute see dozens of people texting and talking on hand-held devices. I’d like to see those numbers plummet with a $1000 fine. I’ll quit my job and enforce if for oh, say…20% of the proceeds. I could knock off work by 9am – easy.

  • avatar
    afflo

    I’m always surprised when I see someone using their thumbs and eyes to text while driving… Americans tend to default to the laziest solution possible.

    Tell Siri to text ____, and dictate the message. She reads it back to you, and you either OK it or correct it.

    If you get a message, you say “Siri, read my most recent text message.”

    Your hands never leave the wheel except to hit the bluetooth button, your eyes never leave the road. Easy, simple. Goes for most other functions with the stereo/audio player/GPS/etc. that would normally be a distraction in the car. I just wish I could say “Computer” instead of “Siri,” and get my Star Trek kicks.

    I’m not as familiar with Android – does the current version include a verbal assistant that can make calls, send/read texts, load music, start navigating, etc?

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      The “excuse” there is, Siri is inaccurate enough to be annoying. Even sitting on the couch on a lazy Sunday, it is absolutely infuriating to speak, wait a few seconds for Siri to process the clip of your voice, interpret it incorrectly, tell her “no thats not what I meant”, then repeat. For basic messages Siri is pretty good but anything over 5-6 words requires perfect enunciation with no “uhh…um…” anywhere.

      A slightly less distracting alternative would be to actually call the person (!!!). The best alternative is puttin the phone in the glovebox then continuing the conversation when you arrive.

  • avatar
    CliffG

    Top of the news here in Everett, Washington is that the city police force continues to spend hours and hours hunting down and nabbing those evil bikini baristas, the last remaining crime not solved and cured here in our fair city. What? Mexican drug gangs? What are you talking about? But yeah, keep spending money patrolling the single most safest place for a person to drive (per million miles driven), the interstate freeway. Way to go! The WSP fully supports those fair Tennessean police actions, and have taken notes….

  • avatar
    Kevin Kluttz

    Texting while driving equates to murder. Go get them. NOW.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    I notice that the Kenworth (or whatever it is) has a light bar. This I want to see: some poor texting sap chased down by a Kenworth for a traffic stop, lights a-blazing and stacks “making coal.”

    The intimidation factor has got to be off the charts . . . at least equal to a SWAT team arriving at your front door — unannounced, of course — in an MRAP.

    I think Jack’s basic point is a fair one: there’s a proportionality issue here. Distracted drivers are annoying and potentially dangerous. But yapping on cell phones and double-thumbing your BlackBerry are hardly the only distractions available to people in cars. And, at the moment, the establishment of a causal relationship, supported by real data, between handheld cell phone use and/or texting and traffic accidents — much less fatalities, has yet to be made.

    Now, if our solons were really serious about seatbelt use, handheld cellphone use or texting, they would define lack of seatbelt use as contributory negligence in any personal injury lawsuit arising out of a traffic accident, and they would define handheld cellphone use or texting as negligence per se in any lawsuit arising out of a traffic accident. And if they were really serious, they would consider proof of handheld cellphone use or texting as an aggravating factor in any criminal charges arising out of a traffic accident, such as negligent homicide (just as the use of a firearm in commission of a felony is considered an aggravating factor). People would start going to jail for that stuff and injured victims not belted would be uncompensated for their injuries.

    Of course, the politicians don’t want to deal with folks screaming bloody murder because they were on the receiving end of such laws . . . so we get more traffic tickets instead, which has the happy collateral benefit of generating more revenue.

    The reason this is done, of course, is that compared to solving murders, writing traffic citations is — literally — like shooting fish in a barrel.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    The cynical side of me knows that banning all manners of major distraction in the car like radio an cell phones would put those industries in a major pinch. So there’s that.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Jack always ferrets out the coolest stuff for me to support.

    Big Rig Troopers!

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Big Rig Troopers! Think of the view from the passenger seat, wink,wink, nudge,nudge.

  • avatar
    Bearadise

    Couldn’t the state pick up a few extra bucks by
    hauling produce or car parts or home improvement supplies around the state while also spotting texters?

  • avatar
    Sken

    I’d be more impressed if the cops were likewise barred from hunt-n-pecking their laptops while driving. If you’ve ever been next to or behind an officer overly engrossed with the in-car computer you know what I mean. They are also no less likely to be mucking about with their phones or lunch than the rest of us while driving.

    The lane wandering and inability to keep a steady speed are profile bait for DUI or texting stops, but it’s Official Patrol Vehicle Equipment, so it’s all good.

  • avatar
    spreadsheet monkey

    Here in commie pinko socialist England, this has been a regular thing for a few years now. The purpose of police using a semi tractor is to put them at eye level with other truck drivers.

    Most people here accept it as a good thing. Truck drivers have caused some serious accidents because they were texting and not concentrating on the road.

    https://www.google.co.uk/#q=lorry+driver+texting

  • avatar
    Jimal

    Texting (or interacting with your mobile device) and driving is dumb, but IMHO equating distracted driving to impaired driving almost as dumb.

    Anecdotally (and logically), there is a basic difference between being distracted and being impaired. Becoming undistracted is a simple matter of looking up, which can be triggered by any number of internal or external stimuli. Your mind isn’t chemically impaired.

    If you are driving under the influence of some substance in your body, your senses are in fact impaired. You won’t magically sober up because someone lays on the horn or you feel the rumble strips on the side of the road.

  • avatar
    cartunez

    Murder might be going up but there is no money in it. Modern police work aka the mobile tax collectors are mostly interested in fees and fines and bullshit arrests that bring in revenue and show the power and glory of the state.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India