While the mitzvot in the Torah fall into two general categories, chok (a commandment without the need for reason) and mishpot (a rational, reason-based commandment), the same is not true for our man-made federal and state laws. There must be a rationale for the enactment of a statute and its implementation must be with a purpose. With regard to motor vehicle and traffic laws, it is understood that the reasons for speed limits are to prevent accidents and fatalities. The placement of red lights and stop signs controls the flow of traffic. The registration and inspection of automobiles and licensing of drivers ensures that only qualified vehicles and drivers are on our roads. The list of laws is extensive, but each law enacted has a societal purpose, either in the protection of others or protecting ourselves.
Although most traffic laws are for the protection of others, the requirement to wear a seatbelt while driving is a public safety law that protects the user from harm. The seatbelt also prevents ejection in case of an accident, thus ultimately we all benefit from safer streets and fewer injuries.
Cell phone usage and texting while driving have proven to be a major contributor to accidents in New Jersey and throughout the country. As such, as of July 1, 2014, the fines and penalties for talking or texting on a hand-held wireless communications device have increased. First-time offenders now face fines of at least $200. The fines associated with a second offense will increase to at least $400, and drivers who are caught a third time will face fines of at least $600 including a 90-day suspension of their driver’s license and three motor vehicle points.
Child safety is the prime impetus for the statute governing school bus regulations. With our children back in school and more school buses on our streets, it is the time of year to be mindful of the laws prohibiting passing a school bus while it is loading and unloading children. Many of my clients have received tickets for this violation, which carries five points on your driver’s license. The issues are usually the same: I didn’t see a bus; the bus was not loading or unloading; the bus was on the other side of the road; etc. However, the law is clear regarding school bus safety. The school bus must be labeled, front and back, in signage at least four inches in height. The arm must be extended to stop traffic and the red lights must be flashing. Under those circumstances, all vehicles are required to stop, in all directions, at least 25 feet from the bus, until the bus driver retracts the arm and turns off the flashing lights, indicating that it is safe to proceed. The exceptions to this rule are if your vehicle is traveling in the opposite direction of the bus on a road or highway that is divided by a “safety island or physical traffic separation” or if the bus is parked in front of a school or camp facility. In such a case you may proceed past the school bus, but only at a speed not to exceed 10 mph.
The penalties for violation of a school bus statute are harsh. Besides receiving five motor vehicle and auto insurance points, you are subject to fines, imprisonment, and community service. (There are separate rules and penalties for passing an ice cream truck in New Jersey.)
A newer law, but similar in its protective purpose, is the requirement to stop and yield for crossing pedestrians within crosswalks. This requirement does not apply to intersections controlled by traffic lights. The violation of this statute carries two motor vehicle points.
No reasonable person can argue against saving lives, safer streets, child safety, and protection for those crossing our roads, nor the implementation of these laws, which are a means to protect our citizens in potentially dangerous situations. The question is the methods used by law enforcement to catch violators. In pedestrian cases specifically, the police have set up sting operations to catch drivers violating the laws. An officer will stand in the crosswalk ready to cross the road and when a vehicle fails to yield, a fellow officer down the road will stop the vehicle and issue a summons. (These sting operations receive grant money from federal and state programs.)
There is no doubt that issuing summonses can be an effective deterrent for future violations. We should consider, however, whether the use of sting-operation methods is flawed by fostering distrust between the residents of our cities and the police entrusted to protect them. Those who protect and serve our communities should not act as bait against the very same population. I would argue that a random radar speed stop or a targeted drug buy by police differs greatly from an undercover pedestrian pretending to cross the street for the sole purpose of issuing summonses to drivers failing to yield. The police have not merely witnessed a violation, but effectively induced the transgression by inserting themselves into the role of a pedestrian. I believe it is unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive for the local police to act in such a manner.
In Jewish law, sting operations are prohibited. You need two impartial witnesses who can state what the violator did and that he was warned prior to performing the illegal act. Our civil communities may not operate under Jewish law, but shouldn’t we seek impartiality from the police to enforce the laws and statutes the legislature enacted for our protection?
Jordan B. Comet is an attorney with offices in Teaneck, NJ. His firm, Comet Law Offices, specializes in municipal, criminal, and civil litigation. He can be reached at 201-385-1900 or [email protected].
By Jordan B. Comet Esq.
