 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Assumption of Guilt.
What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1566.asp "The legislation, HB 203, also requires that municipalities using photo ticketing capture the face of the driver. Once a ticket is issued to an accused driver, that motorist will be compelled to appear in court if he fails or refuses to pay the ticket -- although no arrest warrant may be issued. If a challenge is filed in court, motorists will be presumed guilty as "administrative procedures" will be used for hearings where a "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" serves as the standard of judgment." > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" > serves as the standard of judgment." When you get your "news" from sh.t sources, pretty often you end up with little but sh.t. (xi) Any violation detected solely by an automated vehicle identification system shall be deemed administrative in nature and not a criminal act. Hearings 17 under this section shall be conducted by the court in accordance with the Wyoming administrative procedure act. The burden of proving all elements of the violation, including identity and service of process shall be on the agency utilizing the automated vehicle identification system and shall be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. IOW, violations detected by automated means are not considered criminal acts, and so will not be prosecuted as such, not carry with them the penalties of criminal acts. The standard for civil proceedings has long been "preponderance of the evidence", dumbass. Don't you ever tire of forming conclusions about things of which you are almost completely ignorant? ----- - gpsman > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" > serves as the standard of judgment." Come on now, Brent. You've been around us long enough to know some of the major differences between criminal and civil law.  Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Come on now, Brent. You've been around us long enough to know some of the > major differences between criminal and civil law. And you've been around long enough to realize that if the penalties are essentially the same, calling it "civil law" shouldn't make a difference. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. >> > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > And you've been around long enough to realize that if the penalties are > essentially the same, calling it "civil law" shouldn't make a difference. How is the possibility of physical arrest or detention, the creation and tracking of a criminal record, and possible penalties of jail and/or prison time vs. a monetary fine "essentially the same"? Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > >> > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > tracking of a criminal record, and possible penalties of jail and/or prison > time vs. a monetary fine "essentially the same"? Because those aren't the penalties associated with speeding; fines are. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. >> >> > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Because those aren't the penalties associated with speeding; fines are. Not necessarily in all jurisdictions.... But my advice is learn the difference between civil and criminal law. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > >> >> > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Not necessarily in all jurisdictions.... But my advice is learn the > difference between civil and criminal law. Look up "sophistry"... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. >> >> >> > What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Look up "sophistry"... That's it for your response? Your reference to a word still doesn't change the fact that civil and criminal law are not the same. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > That's it for your response? Your reference to a word still doesn't change > the fact that civil and criminal law are not the same. And everyone's response to *that* is, yes, we know, and classifying speeding as a "civil" as opposed to "criminal" offense is just a) the state admitting that speeding is really, in the grand scheme of things, not that big a deal and b) removing a lot of the state's burden of proof when it comes to assessing those big fines. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > not that big a deal and b) removing a lot of the state's burden of proof > when it comes to assessing those big fines. I can't really say since I live in a state where speeding is a criminal offense. I wish I knew more about the civil process of it so that I could relate it. Perhaps other posters can. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>>>>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > offense. I wish I knew more about the civil process of it so that I could > relate it. Perhaps other posters can. Here's all you need to know: it's a racket and it has nothing to do with safety. HTH, nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>>>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Here's all you need to know: it's a racket and it has nothing to do with > safety. Hehe. Good one. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > I can't really say since I live in a state where speeding is a criminal > offense. I wish I knew more about the civil process of it so that I could > relate it. Perhaps other posters can. In states that classify speeding as a civil infraction, the defendant usually doesn't have the right to subpoena evidence from the state. In other cases, the officer who issued the citation doesn't have to be in court (no right to confront the witness). The standard of proof, as you know, is reduced to a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Many of these factors, either individually, or collectively make it much harder for the defendant to prepare a good defense. > How is the possibility of physical arrest or detention, the creation and > tracking of a criminal record, and possible penalties of jail and/or prison > time vs. a monetary fine "essentially the same"? Government force. >>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > tracking of a criminal record, and possible penalties of jail and/or prison > time vs. a monetary fine "essentially the same"? A speeding ticket has FAR more serious consequences than "a monetary fine" and you know it. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >A speeding ticket has FAR more serious consequences than "a monetary >fine" and you know it. Not in my experience. You pay the fine, drive off into the sunset, forget about it. Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing cop in Maryland that 1) LLB's, forcing you to pass on the right and 2) then speeds up so you can't complete the pass which he knows is necessary if you're going to get around the even slower traffic ahead, and 3) continues until you reach his magic number where he writes tickets.... I'm not going to forget about that one. Biggest jerk I've ever met. DPH >nate On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing cop in > Maryland that 1) LLB's, forcing you to pass on the right What method of force did he exert upon your velocity? What did you do to resist? > and 2) then speeds up > so you can't complete the pass which he knows is necessary if you're going to > get around the even slower traffic ahead, and 3) continues until you reach his > magic number where he writes tickets.... I'm not going to forget about that > one. Biggest jerk I've ever met. I'll bet he's still splitting his sides telling the story about the biggest idiot he ever met, who he "forced" to speed, then gave a ticket. ----- - gpsman >On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> >> Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing cop in >> Maryland that 1) LLB's, forcing you to pass on the right > >What method of force did he exert upon your velocity? What did you do >to resist? Don't give me this bullshit - obviously one is going to pass the slower vehicle. I was going 73, on cruise control. Had it not been for him, I'd have gone 73 thru the entire state... He could have written me for 73 any time he wanted - the limit was 65 - but that wasn't good enough for him. He had to create a situation where I was either trapped behind him, and the other traffic ahead, all going slower, or go like a bat out of hell to get around him as he sped up. This speeding up when someone is trying to pass is illegal, BTW... but of course that doesn't make any difference to him. This is probably the sort of cop that plants cocaine or an illegal gun in your car, too. >> and 2) then speeds up >> so you can't complete the pass which he knows is necessary if you're going to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >biggest idiot he ever met, who he "forced" to speed, then gave a >ticket. Yeah, I know, they think this is funny. Oh, BTW, he was in an unmarked car. I thought he was just another f'n duckling. DPH > ----- > >- gpsman On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > >On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > >> Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing cop in > >> Maryland that 1) LLB's, forcing you to pass on the right > > >What method of force did he exert upon your velocity? What did you do > >to resist? > Don't give me this bullshit - obviously one is going to pass the slower > vehicle. Obviously one has the choice to -not- pass a slower vehicle, and reduce their velocity instead. I do it all the time. > I was going 73, on cruise control. Had it not been for him, I'd have > gone 73 thru the entire state... He could have written me for 73 any time he > wanted - the limit was 65 - but that wasn't good enough for him. He had to > create a situation where I was either trapped behind him, and the other traffic > ahead, all going slower, or go like a bat out of hell to get around him as he > sped up. You weren't "trapped" behind him, you were just behind him. "Trapped" is what you "felt". You could choose to not feel trapped, you could look upon slower traffic situations as ordinary, everyday events, since they are, even for me, and deal with them differently. But of course you would never consider that. Like so many morons you think you should be able to get on a highway, choose a velocity, and then never have to lower it. That's probably the exact type of moron your cop was looking for. And he didn't "create the situation", you did. Had you not exceeded the SL you would likely never have come within a mile of him. A cop in the line of duty may drive in any lane he chooses. If he's baiting suckers who are willing to drive, well, whatever velocity he wrote you for, and giving them tickets, I'd say that's in the line of duty. And at any rate, you cite traffic ahead, all of it going slower. I's guess you were operating well in excess of the 85th percentile, and probably passing the cop wouldn't have done you much good anyway. > This speeding up when someone is trying to pass is illegal, BTW... That is absolutely irrelevant to your poor choices. > but of course that doesn't make any difference to him. Nope, prolly not. > This is probably the > sort of cop that plants cocaine or an illegal gun in your car, too. Yeah right. Catches you, he's a bad cop... > >I'll bet he's still splitting his sides telling the story about the > >biggest idiot he ever met, who he "forced" to speed, then gave a > >ticket. > Yeah, I know, they think this is funny. Oh, BTW, he was in an unmarked car. I > thought he was just another f'n duckling. Hmmm. Has it ever occurred to you that you might reconsider your methods of thinking? It probably couldn't hurt. ----- - gpsman >And he didn't "create the situation", you did. Had you not exceeded >the SL you would likely never have come within a mile of him. Had I not exceeded the speed limit, 1) I would have been at much greater risk of getting hit in the a.s by some asleep truck driver 2) would have been a nervous wreck by the end of the trip from having (much) faster cars whizzing by most of the time 3) would have wasted a full extra hour on the road for no good reason that day, as I was driving 600 miles from Indianapolis to eastern Virginia. The only reason I was faster than the traffic at that time was that this was uphill. Everyone else seems to think that going uphill is a great reason to dawdle on an Interstate highway. >A cop in the line of duty may drive in any lane he chooses. If he's >baiting suckers who are willing to drive, well, whatever velocity he >wrote you for, and giving them tickets, I'd say that's in the line of >duty. Next time I'm going to pull up about a half car-length beyond the cop, then slow down extremely gradually. I've found that cops absolutely will not pass you, no matter what, when you do this. I got one cop down to about 23 mph on a state highway a few weeks ago like that. It was grand. Anyway, I'll get 'em down to about as slow as he'll go, then I'll do my pass in a burst of acceleration. I've currently got a car that he isn't going to be able to keep up with from 23 mph to 65... <G> not to mention the sudden acceleration will catch him by surprise... <GGG> >And at any rate, you cite traffic ahead, all of it going slower. I's >guess you were operating well in excess of the 85th percentile, and >probably passing the cop wouldn't have done you much good anyway. I could have gone all the way across f'n Maryland at 73 mph if not for this nonsense. I went the _rest_ of the way across Md. at 73 mph _after_ the ticket. But smart-a.s cop couldn't be bothered to write a ticket for 73.... not enough $$$ in it for the state for that... no, he had to F with someone to make it worse. What a j.rkoff. >> This speeding up when someone is trying to pass is illegal, BTW... > >That is absolutely irrelevant to your poor choices. >> but of course that doesn't make any difference to him. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yeah right. Catches you, he's a bad cop... Coulda at least caught me for something I was doing without his influence. Why didn't he do that? Why, the fine wasn't profitable enough, of course. >> >I'll bet he's still splitting his sides telling the story about the >> >biggest idiot he ever met, who he "forced" to speed, then gave a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Hmmm. Has it ever occurred to you that you might reconsider your >methods of thinking? It probably couldn't hurt. Nope. Next vacation, I'm going to be SL +7 the entire way, and still get blown off the road by every 5th speeding truck, and not get hit in the a.s by all the traffic that is going SL + something else. I've been doing this for over 43 years, and it is what keeps me from crashing. Never crashed - 'cuz I keep the hell away from people, pay attention better than 98% of everyone else on the road, and don't let people sneak up on me from behind at high differential rates of speed. Yeah, I'm going to keep driving like that, becuase it _works_. DPH > ----- > >- gpsman > >And he didn't "create the situation", you did. Had you not exceeded > >the SL you would likely never have come within a mile of him.Had I not exceeded the speed limit, > > 1) I would have been at much greater risk of getting hit in the a.s by some > asleep truck driver Bullshit. Find one report of a truck rear-ending another vehicle in free-flowing traffic operating at the speed limit. > 2) would have been a nervous wreck by the end of the trip from having (much) > faster cars whizzing by most of the time So it's nerve soothing to be the whizzer, but nerve racking to be the whizzee. That kinda makes sense, if you don't consider your whizzing as nerve racking to other whizzees. I'd guess you'd opine their nerves were their problem and you're a "perfectly safe" whizzer. It's the velocity of "everybody else", but not yours. > 3) would have wasted a full extra hour on the road for no good reason that day, > as I was driving 600 miles from Indianapolis to eastern Virginia. How much time did you save by getting a ticket? You are not a very good judge of what constitutes a good compromise. > The only reason I was faster than the traffic at that time was that this was > uphill. Everyone else seems to think that going uphill is a great reason to > dawdle on an Interstate highway. Driving the speed limit is not dawdling. And, I feel compelled to point out you have no method of determining why any other drivers choose to operate at which velocity, much less all of them. > >A cop in the line of duty may drive in any lane he chooses. If he's > >baiting suckers who are willing to drive, well, whatever velocity he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > able to keep up with from 23 mph to 65... <G> not to mention the sudden > acceleration will catch him by surprise... <GGG> What a great plan! I guess slowing down to 23 won't cost you any time, as long as you do it solely of your own choice, and not in response to fluctuations of the speed of surrounding traffic. > >And at any rate, you cite traffic ahead, all of it going slower. I's > >guess you were operating well in excess of the 85th percentile, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not enough $$$ in it for the state for that... no, he had to F with someone to > make it worse. What a j.rkoff. Nobody can f.ck with you in that manner unless you allow it. > >> This is probably the > >> sort of cop that plants cocaine or an illegal gun in your car, too. > > >Yeah right. Catches you, he's a bad cop...Coulda at least caught me for something I was doing without his influence. Why > didn't he do that? Why, the fine wasn't profitable enough, of course. His influence?! WTF, aren't you man enough to choose your own velocity and ignoring the "influence" of total strangers? > >> Yeah, I know, they think this is funny. Oh, BTW, he was in an unmarked car. I > >> thought he was just another f'n duckling. > > >Hmmm. Has it ever occurred to you that you might reconsider your > >methods of thinking? It probably couldn't hurt. > Nope. Next vacation, I'm going to be SL +7 the entire way, and still get blown > off the road by every 5th speeding truck, and not get hit in the a.s by all the > traffic that is going SL + something else. I've been doing this for over 43 > years, and it is what keeps me from crashing. Uh, no, that's what, by your measure, keeps traffic from crashing into you. > Never crashed - 'cuz I keep the > hell away from people, pay attention better than 98% of everyone else on the > road, and don't let people sneak up on me from behind at high differential > rates of speed. Yeah, I'm going to keep driving like that, becuase it _works_. It doesn't work as well as my method of driving the SL, maintaining a safe following distance and KRETP. I don't get tickets -plus- I don't crash. ----- - gpsman >> >And he didn't "create the situation", you did. Had you not exceeded >> >the SL you would likely never have come within a mile of him.Had I not exceeded the speed limit, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Bullshit. Find one report of a truck rear-ending another vehicle in >free-flowing traffic operating at the speed limit. Well, it doesn't _have_ to be a truck, now does it? Here's a video of a car rear-ending a motorcycle: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/241407/motorcyclist_gets_rear_ended/ cycle shouldn't have slowed to gawk at the damn parked van, eh? Here's one that got rear-ended for slowing on an Interstate: http://horny-oryx.livejournal.com/6267.html and of course they hit _stopped_ cars on the interstate all the time: http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=45&id=43912 even the ones with flashing lights. The bottom line is to be faster than whatever's behind you and you won't get rear-ended. >> 2) would have been a nervous wreck by the end of the trip from having (much) >> faster cars whizzing by most of the time > >So it's nerve soothing to be the whizzer, Yeah - I _know_ _I'm_ not going to hit anything because I'm the one paying attention. >but nerve racking to be the >whizzee. That kinda makes sense, if you don't consider your whizzing >as nerve racking to other whizzees. If it bothers them, they can always speed up... >I'd guess you'd opine their nerves >were their problem and you're a "perfectly safe" whizzer. So far, that's true. >It's the >velocity of "everybody else", but not yours. Most of the time I'm not faster than the other cars when I'm driving +7 of the SL. I just happen to do it uphill, downhill, around curves, over hills, etc. and others seem to go slower up hills... >> 3) would have wasted a full extra hour on the road for no good reason that day, >> as I was driving 600 miles from Indianapolis to eastern Virginia. > >How much time did you save by getting a ticket? About 40 minutes, overall, for that day. Probably on the order of 8 - 20 hours for the year - I drive a _lot_. >You are not a very good judge of what constitutes a good compromise. Yes, I am. I just place a high value on not being on the road any more that I really have to, while getting to and from the destinations I wish to. >> The only reason I was faster than the traffic at that time was that this was >> uphill. Everyone else seems to think that going uphill is a great reason to >> dawdle on an Interstate highway. > >Driving the speed limit is not dawdling. Yes, it is. Do it, and you'll be passed by almost everyone. > And, I feel compelled to >point out you have no method of determining why any other drivers >choose to operate at which velocity, much less all of them. No, and I really don't care. I just observe that they do. >> >A cop in the line of duty may drive in any lane he chooses. If he's >> >baiting suckers who are willing to drive, well, whatever velocity he [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >as long as you do it solely of your own choice, and not in response to >fluctuations of the speed of surrounding traffic. It is a pleasure that's worth the slight delay. If the cop wants to be a prick and go duckling on my left or right rear quarter-panel, and not pass when 99.9% of the remainder of the general public would do so, then it doesn't bother me a bit to F with 'em. >> >And at any rate, you cite traffic ahead, all of it going slower. I's >> >guess you were operating well in excess of the 85th percentile, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Nobody can f.ck with you in that manner unless you allow it. And why didn't the prick in question simply write a ticket for 73 mph, which is the speed that I was _trying_ to do all the way across the state, until he gave me the choice of being trapped behind slow traffic or speeding to get around a 'duckling'. >> >> This is probably the >> >> sort of cop that plants cocaine or an illegal gun in your car, too. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >His influence?! WTF, aren't you man enough to choose your own velocity >and ignoring the "influence" of total strangers? Had I ignored the situation, I'd have been doing about 58 going uphill behind him and the group ahead that seemed to have a fear of climbing hills, or passing the 18 wheelers in the climbing lane... >> >> Yeah, I know, they think this is funny. Oh, BTW, he was in an unmarked car. I >> >> thought he was just another f'n duckling. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Uh, no, that's what, by your measure, keeps traffic from crashing into >you. Whatever - twist words any way you like, and the bottom line is that I don't have bent sheet metal. >> Never crashed - 'cuz I keep the >> hell away from people, pay attention better than 98% of everyone else on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >safe following distance and KRETP. I don't get tickets -plus- I don't >crash. And you spend an extra hour on the road, exposed to even more idiots, than I do for any trip around 600 miles or more. No thanks... you deal with 'em, I'll avoid 'em. DPH > ----- > >- gpsman > On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> >> Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > biggest idiot he ever met, who he "forced" to speed, then gave a > ticket. That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped at a light. When it turned green, I accelerated as I normally do, but noticed an SUV hanging on my bumper. The speed limit was 55 in the town we were going through, so when I got to that he was still right behind me. I kept my acceleration and when we made it to 65 I pulled to the right and let him by. He was quite upset when I stopped him; blamed me for "baiting" him into speeding, but acknowledged the fact that the driver of every vehicle is responsible for their own speed. Guess he learned to watch the signs. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped at a >light. When it turned green, I accelerated as I normally do, but noticed an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >speeding, but acknowledged the fact that the driver of every vehicle is >responsible for their own speed. Guess he learned to watch the signs. Did you write yourself a ticket for exceeding the speed limit, hypocrite? It's morons such as yourself that bring a smile come to my face when I hear about a LEO going down. -- Ask me about drunk driving for fun and profit! >>That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped at a >>light. When it turned green, I accelerated as I normally do, but noticed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Did you write yourself a ticket for exceeding the speed limit, > hypocrite? On what grounds? Not only are police vehicles exempt from the speed requirements here, they are further authorized to match the speed of violators during enforcement. Pacing doesn't always have to be done from behind. > It's morons such as yourself that bring a smile come to my face when I > hear about a LEO going down. Sad. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped at a > light. When it turned green, I accelerated as I normally do, but noticed an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speeding, but acknowledged the fact that the driver of every vehicle is > responsible for their own speed. Guess he learned to watch the signs. I take it you wrote yourself a ticket then. Why not just write him up for tailgating... oh wait, that's standard cop driving too. >> That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped at >> a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I take it you wrote yourself a ticket then. Again, on what grounds? If that were the case, every cop would receive a ticket everytime they were chasing a violator. > Why not just write him up > for tailgating... oh wait, that's standard cop driving too. Because he wasn't tailgating. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>> That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped at >>> a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> I take it you wrote yourself a ticket then. > Again, on what grounds? If that were the case, every cop would receive a > ticket everytime they were chasing a violator. You weren't chasing anyone, you were just speeding. >> Why not just write him up >> for tailgating... oh wait, that's standard cop driving too. > Because he wasn't tailgating. 'hanging on my bumper' is usually a phrase describing tailgating. >>>> That reminds me of a ticket I wrote a few months back. I was stopped >>>> at [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You weren't chasing anyone, you were just speeding. Not true. Pacing does not have to be done from behind. >>> Why not just write him up >>> for tailgating... oh wait, that's standard cop driving too. > >> Because he wasn't tailgating. > > 'hanging on my bumper' is usually a phrase describing tailgating. "Tailgating" would be a phrase I would use to describe tailgating. He was not, and I failed to use a term that would be more to your liking. I apologize. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >> You weren't chasing anyone, you were just speeding. > Not true. Pacing does not have to be done from behind. You weren't pacing him. Pacing means adjusting your speed to the other person's. He, being behind you from a *STOP* was pacing -YOU-. You were speeding, and he decided what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You're a typical do as I say, not as I do, cop. >>>> Why not just write him up >>>> for tailgating... oh wait, that's standard cop driving too. >> >>> Because he wasn't tailgating. >> 'hanging on my bumper' is usually a phrase describing tailgating. > "Tailgating" would be a phrase I would use to describe tailgating. He was > not, and I failed to use a term that would be more to your liking. I > apologize. How does one 'hang on a bumper' from far away? >>> You weren't chasing anyone, you were just speeding. > >> Not true. Pacing does not have to be done from behind. > > You weren't pacing him. Pacing means adjusting your speed to the other > person's. He, being behind you from a *STOP* was pacing -YOU-. Negative. I was not pacing him at the stoplight. > You were speeding, and he decided what's good for the goose is good for > the gander. You're a typical do as I say, not as I do, cop. Yep. There is no speed requirement for a police vehicle in Texas, and as I explained to him, he was responsible for the speed of his own vehicle regardless of any other factors. >>>>> Why not just write him up >>>>> for tailgating... oh wait, that's standard cop driving too. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How does one 'hang on a bumper' from far away? Ehh, my Texas slang doesn't translate to your part of the country I guess. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >> You weren't pacing him. Pacing means adjusting your speed to the other >> person's. He, being behind you from a *STOP* was pacing -YOU-. > Negative. I was not pacing him at the stoplight. You were NEVER pacing him. To pace him you adjust your speed to his. This was impossible because he was trapped behind you starting from a dead stop. He adjusted his speed to YOURS. HE PACED YOU! >> You were speeding, and he decided what's good for the goose is good for >> the gander. You're a typical do as I say, not as I do, cop. > Yep. There is no speed requirement for a police vehicle in Texas, and as I > explained to him, he was responsible for the speed of his own vehicle > regardless of any other factors. We all know how f.cking special you cops think you are. How you believe you are above the law. >> How does one 'hang on a bumper' from far away? > Ehh, my Texas slang doesn't translate to your part of the country I guess. I figure it's just more stupid cop talk. Like the one who said I was drafting another cop, only trouble was I was 1/4 to 1/2 mile back and loosing ground. >>> You weren't pacing him. Pacing means adjusting your speed to the other >>> person's. He, being behind you from a *STOP* was pacing -YOU-. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was impossible because he was trapped behind you starting from a dead > stop. He adjusted his speed to YOURS. HE PACED YOU! His mistake then. But you're incorrect. Pacing can be done from any position around a vehicle, including in front of. >>> You were speeding, and he decided what's good for the goose is good for >>> the gander. You're a typical do as I say, not as I do, cop. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We all know how f.cking special you cops think you are. How you believe > you are above the law. It's not really a thought that we have, it is written in the traffic code as it applies to police vehicles. You can't be above a law that isn't applicable. >>> How does one 'hang on a bumper' from far away? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > drafting another cop, only trouble was I was 1/4 to 1/2 mile back and > loosing ground. Ok. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>> You weren't pacing him. Pacing means adjusting your speed to the other >>>> person's. He, being behind you from a *STOP* was pacing -YOU-. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > His mistake then. Where's your ticket? > But you're incorrect. Pacing can be done from any position around a > vehicle, including in front of. YOU WEREN'T PACING HIM. HE WAS PACING YOU. It is physically impossible for him to reach an illegal speed unless you did FIRST. >>> explained to him, he was responsible for the speed of his own vehicle >>> regardless of any other factors. >> We all know how f.cking special you cops think you are. How you believe >> you are above the law. > It's not really a thought that we have, it is written in the traffic code as > it applies to police vehicles. You can't be above a law that isn't > applicable. Yeah, like congress passes laws for everyone but members and former members of congress. Just because you get it codified doesn't make it right. Remember that 'all men are created equal' bit? > > On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > >> Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > speeding, but acknowledged the fact that the driver of every vehicle is > responsible for their own speed. Guess he learned to watch the signs. Why didn't you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. >> > On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> >> >> Well, you forget about it with the exception of the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Why didn't you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit? Certainly you've been around here long enough to have seen my references to Texas law regarding speed as it applies to police vehicles, and further references about catching violators. Police vehicles are not normal traffic. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain <bit o'snip for now> >Police vehicles are not normal > traffic. <.sig snip for now> Good one, jaybird. You are one of very few LEO willing to admit it. That's one factor behind the "move over" laws passed in states like Missouri. > <bit o'snip for now> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's one factor behind the "move over" laws passed in states like > Missouri. There isn't much to "admit". The traffic code clearly separates emergency vehicles, and further, police vehicles apart from normal restrictions of driving, turning, parking, etc. because of the nature of the job they perform. Some people take offense to that (especially in this newsgroup), but I can't do a very good job of proactive law enforcement if I'm sitting between the same three cars all the way down the road. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> >> Well, you forget about it with the exception of the ticket-manufacturing cop in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >biggest idiot he ever met, who he "forced" to speed, then gave a >ticket. Along with his porcine buddies, who pull up behind a car on a two-lane road at night and turn their brights, then pull over the victim when he speeds up to reduce the glare. (yep, actual MD cop tactic. Heard about it, and had it done to me, except I was forewarned and didn't get caught) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>On Jan 24, 9:45 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote: <brevity snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > up to reduce the glare. (yep, actual MD cop tactic. Heard about it, > and had it done to me, except I was forewarned and didn't get caught) I've never seen that, but I have seen MD cops with low beams aimed so high that I was blinded by those - I actually gave a cop a "hey, dim your lights" flash once and got a flash in return, showing me that his lights were actually on low beam... couldn't tell it was a cop until he passed me, that's how blind I was. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Along with his porcine buddies, who pull up behind a car on a two-lane road at > night and turn their brights, then pull over the victim when he speeds > up to reduce the glare. (yep, actual MD cop tactic. Heard about it, > and had it done to me, except I was forewarned and didn't get caught) Because cops tailgate so often, I never speed up for a tailgater. I move right if possible (because well, if I am being tailgated, I'm blocked and I just like the person blocking me to be tailgated instead) and if I am in the right most lane I just slow down. I've pissed off more than one cop doing this BTW, and I have recounted my first interaction with an IL state trooper and his spewing of gravel on my car because I didn't speed up for him in this group a few times in the past. >>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > that > one. Biggest jerk I've ever met. You were driving 73 in a 65. I would've written you a ticket too. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >You were driving 73 in a 65. I would've written you a ticket too. What about 65 in a 55, hypocrite? You were 10 over as opposed to 7 over like Dave was. Oh yeah, that's right, you guys don't have to follow the laws you're sworn to uphold. -- Ask me about drunk driving for fun and profit! >>You were driving 73 in a 65. I would've written you a ticket too. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh yeah, that's right, you guys don't have to follow the laws you're > sworn to uphold. Of course we are. Read up on how laws relate to police vehicles. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > DPH You're forgetting increased insurance premiums and loss of company vehicle privileges or even loss of employment... plus a lot of people (lenders, prospective employers etc.) now check driving records even if it's not exactly pertinent to them as they consider tickets to be risk factors. Let me guess, this cop was either in Annapolis or Baltimore? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > A speeding ticket has FAR more serious consequences than "a monetary fine" > and you know it. That's all it is here. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > That's all it is here. See my last post, that's almost never true, whether or not those are the only penalties a COURT imposes. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Come on now, Brent. You've been around us long enough to know some of the > major differences between criminal and civil law. Renaming something as 'civil' doesn't change what it is. >>> What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Renaming something as 'civil' doesn't change what it is. It's not renaming, it's by definition. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >> Renaming something as 'civil' doesn't change what it is. > It's not renaming, it's by definition. It's a penalty imposed by government on an individual using or with threat of arrest and further penalties, that's a criminal. >>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It's not renaming, it's by definition. So it's not a crime, then. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So it's not a crime, then. It depends on what part you're referring to. Civil penalties are not the same as criminal penalties, making civil law non-criminal. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > It depends on what part you're referring to. Civil penalties are not the > same as criminal penalties, making civil law non-criminal. The government will jail people, sieze their property, etc for failure to pay a government's 'civil' penalty. Meanwhile, should say I have a civil judgement against another person and that person doesn't pay, well tough sh.t for me. If I take his car or any of his property, that's called theft, even if he owes me a judgement. If I hold him against his will that is also a crime, even if there has been a civil judgement in my favor that has not been paid. Yet, the government can do those things to collect what it calls civil judgements. They are really criminal judgements, enforced like criminal judgements but called civil to reduce the burden on the government and make it easier to fleece the people. It's clear you don't have a clue the sort of people you serve or are a willing accomplice, jaybird -- "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." -Major General Smedley Butler >> It depends on what part you're referring to. Civil penalties are not the >> same as criminal penalties, making civil law non-criminal. > > The government will jail people, sieze their property, etc for failure to > pay a government's 'civil' penalty. True. > Meanwhile, should say I have a civil > judgement against another person and that person doesn't pay, well tough > sh.t for me. Not true. If a person fails to follow a court order, the judge can issue arrest warrants. > If I take his car or any of his property, that's called theft even if he > owes me a judgement. True. You can only perform actions stated in the court order. > If I hold him against his will that is > also a crime, even if there has been a civil judgement in my favor that > has not been paid. True. It's called unlawful detention. > Yet, the government can do those things to collect > what it calls civil judgements. They are really criminal judgements, > enforced like criminal judgements but called civil to reduce the burden > on the government and make it easier to fleece the people. It's clear you > don't have a clue the sort of people you serve or are a willing > accomplice, jaybird I do, there are just more variables involved in each case that you can't generalize. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >> Meanwhile, should say I have a civil >> judgement against another person and that person doesn't pay, well tough >> sh.t for me. > Not true. If a person fails to follow a court order, the judge can issue > arrest warrants. Typical jaybird being clever. No arrest warrants are issued because one citizen owes a judgement to another when the one owed is just a regular guy. We don't have debtor's prisons in the USA, at least not yet. I could see a judge maybe doing that for a large corporation, but for an ordinary person, not bloody likely. >> If I take his car or any of his property, that's called theft even if he >> owes me a judgement. > True. You can only perform actions stated in the court order. Which is zero, zlich. However, the government will just take things from citizens who don't pay the tribute. >> If I hold him against his will that is >> also a crime, even if there has been a civil judgement in my favor that >> has not been paid. > True. It's called unlawful detention. But the government can to enforce civil judgements it's owed. >> Yet, the government can do those things to collect >> what it calls civil judgements. They are really criminal judgements, >> enforced like criminal judgements but called civil to reduce the burden >> on the government and make it easier to fleece the people. It's clear you >> don't have a clue the sort of people you serve or are a willing >> accomplice, jaybird > I do, there are just more variables involved in each case that you can't > generalize. So you're a willing accomplice to a criminal government. Too bad, at one time I thought you could be woken up like Gen. Butler. >> So it's not a crime, then. > >It depends on what part you're referring to. Civil penalties are not the >same as criminal penalties, making civil law non-criminal. Right. So a $200 "civil" fine is somehow a different penalty than a $200 "criminal" fine? If the case was really "civil", there's be no fines at all; there would be damages. And since no one was damaged, there'd be no case for the state. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> So it's not a crime, then. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Right. So a $200 "civil" fine is somehow a different penalty than a > $200 "criminal" fine? Nope. Those parts are pretty much the same. > If the case was really "civil", there's be no fines at all; there > would be damages. And since no one was damaged, there'd be no case > for the state. I'm glad no one was damaged. As long as we keep enforcing traffic law, we'll continue to aim for that goal. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > I'm glad no one was damaged. As long as we keep enforcing traffic law, > we'll continue to aim for that goal. A civil judgement requires that another party was damaged in some form or fashion. >>>> So it's not a crime, then. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Nope. Those parts are pretty much the same. OK, so a $200 civil traffic ticket on your driving record is somehow a different penalty than a $200 criminal traffic ticket on your driving record? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Come on now, Brent. You've been around us long enough to know some of the > major differences between criminal and civil law. Yup, civil is an easy way to get around some of those pesky due process requirements. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yup, civil is an easy way to get around some of those pesky due process > requirements. Due process as it applies to putting someone in jail? Not the same thing. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Due process as it applies to putting someone in jail? Not the same thing. Due process as in punishing people, whether that punishment is jail or screwing with their finances or anything else that messes up their lives. More and more, governments are finding it convenient to do just that - fine you thru the mail because your _car_ was seen somewhere going this fast or not stopping for a traffic light (even tho you were just getting out of the way of the fire engine that needed to get thru), etc. You get a ticket in the mail, or worse, don't get a ticket in the mail, and get your license suspended for non-response, etc. And... its all about the Benjamins. That's what it is. And we don't want to hear anything about going to court and fighting it, either, because doing that is, in itself, screwing with one's financial situation, and life situation, while taking off work, and is in itself punishment inflicted because the cameras got it wrong. The cameras must not be allowed to get it wrong - the cameras must go - this stuff needs to be enforced by _people_, not a bunch of damn, dumb, error-prone cameras. Dave Head > >>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > allowed to get it wrong - the cameras must go - this stuff needs to be enforced > by _people_, not a bunch of damn, dumb, error-prone cameras. Ah, yes, the perfect and infallible "people", they're the "solution". The process of dealing with the tickets is obviously far less than optimal, and even completely unfair in many instances, but that's the fault of "people", not machines. Camera enforcement is practically a perfect solution to many traffic problems, it's people who have screwed it up. Including the necessity for it. People just refuse to slow down a little. The defacto highway speed limit is 10 over, practically everywhere. They even put up signs warning of the cameras. There are news articles about their installations, there are websites devoted to noting the locations of traffic cameras. The only people who get caught by cameras are dunderheads to begin with, and probably shouldn't be driving at all. ----- - gpsman >> And we don't want to hear anything about going to court and fighting it, >> either, because doing that is, in itself, screwing with one's financial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ah, yes, the perfect and infallible "people", they're the "solution". Well, obviously not where cops are involved, but... at least there's few enough cops that they _will_ only have time to be screwing with people that are actually running the traffic light for no good reason - IOW, they probably won't screw with someone that goes thru the red light to clear a path for an ambulance. But a camera will snap a picture anyway for that. >People just refuse to slow down a >little. The defacto highway speed limit is 10 over, practically >everywhere. Yeah, that's 'cuz the state goes out and finds the 'comfortable' driving speed of whatever road, and then subtracts 15 mph. Why? To generate a lot of traffic fine $$$, of course. >The only people who get caught by cameras are dunderheads to begin >with, and probably shouldn't be driving at all. People get screwed by traffic light cameras because they have a choice of getting rammed in the a.s or continuing thru the interesection. Studies have shown that the traffic light cameras INCREASE the accident rate at a lot of intersections because of the sharp rise of rear-end accidents. That, of course, gets ignored because it would put a crimp in collecting all that traffic fine money created by the camera. And, of course, 99% of the traffic light cameras aren't necessary, because the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the length of the yellow light. But, of course, this isn't done. Why? Well, because... there wouldn't be any profit in that... no traffic fine $$$ coming in... Much better to have a camera, and increased accidents from rear-enders, and have all that traffic fine $$$ coming in, than increase the length of the yellow and solve the problem, and make accident rates go way down. But injuries, deaths, pain, suffering, etc. don't figure into it - the highway enforcement is not about safety, it's about making money off the general public with traffic fines. DPH >- gpsman >>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > enforced > by _people_, not a bunch of damn, dumb, error-prone cameras. If a citation is issued in error, you can contest it in court. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > If a citation is issued in error, you can contest it in court. May you get a camera citation and have it upheld in court by a corrupt judge. Repeatedly. a.shole. I wish that smug, self-righteous a.shole cops like you could be forced, just once, to go through all the hassle, expense, and bullshit that Joe Average Citizen has to go through to fight an undeserved ticket only to have it stick and have to pay hundreds of dollars in fines, higher insurance costs, etc. etc. etc. and then maybe you would understand why we'd just rather you weren't around at all. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > May you get a camera citation and have it upheld in court by a corrupt > judge. Repeatedly. a.shole. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > nate I understand why you get so many tickets. With your attitude, I'm surprised you don't get beaten very often. Steve >> May you get a camera citation and have it upheld in court by a corrupt >> judge. Repeatedly. a.shole. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve What attitude? What nate says is spot-on accurate. Traffic tickets are all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Joe Average Citizen can be royally f.cked by the system at any time for behavior that is safe, normal, and better than the average cop drives. You will never see a cop doing less than 15-over the limit, EVER, unless that cop is stuck in traffic. Even then, they will often turn on the disco lights and skirt around it, again at 15-over or better, when there is no reason to use the disco lights other than (I don't want to wait for traffic). But Joe Average Citizen blending with traffic (which is the SAFEST speed to travel at) at around 10 over or so? Joe Average Citizen will often be fined several hundred dollars, and pay several THOUSAND dollars in increased insurance premiums over several years, for doing something that is not even remotely dangerous, and driving the same way that every single driver on the road drives. -Dave On Jan 26, 11:08 am, "Mike T." <n...@nohow.not> wrote: <brevity snip> > > Traffic tickets are all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I see it a tad differently, but even if traffic tickets (I assume you mean speeding tickets) are -all about revenue-, all one must do to decrease their odds of contributing to that revenue stream is slow the f.ck down. I mean, I do it, and find it quite easy, and some here will say I'm among the worst of drivers. > Joe Average Citizen blending with traffic (which is the > SAFEST speed to travel at) at around 10 over or so? No, that is a misinterpretation of speed studies, by those who never to bother to read any further than what supports their already formed and ignorant conclusion/s: "f conflicts created by large differences in travel speeds were a major factor in the likelihood of crashes, then one might expect to find a large number of crashes involving two or more vehicles traveling in the same direction. Cerrilli (1997) found less than one-third of all crashes and 5 percent of all fatal crashes in 1996 involved two or more vehicle traveling in the same direction. Many of these likely occurred as a consequence of a vehicle slowing or stopping for cause (i.e., to make an intended maneuver or avoid striking a stopped vehicle or other hazard) and being struck from behind by a vehicle following too closely or going too fast for the driver to stop in time to avoid the collision." http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm > Joe Average Citizen > will often be fined several hundred dollars, and pay several THOUSAND > dollars in increased insurance premiums over several years, for doing &g |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message