Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Chicagoan sues city over cell-phone driving ban - Cites lack of signs

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 19 Dec 2007 19:14 GMT
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/cell.phone.ban.2.614044.html

Lawsuit To Challenge City Cell Phone Ban
Suit Claims Enforcement Is Illegal Because No Signs Warn Of Law

CHICAGO (CBS) Dec 19,2007 -- An attorney filed a legal challenge to
Chicago's ban on hand-held cell phone use while driving.

As CBS 2's Kristyn Hartman reports, the lawsuit that attorney filed in
federal court Wednesday claims the cell phone ban wasn't enacted properly.
Depending on the outcome, the fate of thousands of tickets issued to
drivers could be up in the air.

"The City of Chicago has to put up signs to notify people that speaking on
cell phones (without hands-free devices) is illegal," Horwitz said. "If
they notify people of that fact, then they are allowed to charge people and
prosecute people for committing that violation. There are no signs."

Horwitz said he filed his class action suit Wednesday morning. It claims
that the cell phone ban is ineffective because it does not comply with
Illinois law that requires the signage.

When ticketed, drivers who violate the ban are fined anywhere from $75 to
$200.  The city has earned about $2 million from fines, and Horwitz says
more than 25,000 people have been ticketed.

(snip)

-----------------------

More criminal coddling BS. Now look for the child molesters to also claim
"hey - nobody told me it was illegal."
richard - 19 Dec 2007 19:29 GMT
>http://cbs2chicago.com/local/cell.phone.ban.2.614044.html
>
>Lawsuit To Challenge City Cell Phone Ban
>Suit Claims Enforcement Is Illegal Because No Signs Warn Of Law

Cool. Wonder how many times a cop got cited for the same offense?
Or how many times a cop spotted a violation while he was yacking away
on his and driving?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 19 Dec 2007 19:44 GMT
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:14:50 -0000, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Or how many times a cop spotted a violation while he was yacking away
> on his and driving?

I know what you mean. Cops break every law in the book and nothing is
ever done to them. Look at the taser scandals.
necromancer - 22 Dec 2007 18:39 GMT
SFB spewed:

> I know what you mean. Cops break every law in the book and nothing is
> ever done to them. Look at the taser scandals.

Bullshit. If the cops were to tazer someone committing the offense (sic)
of speeding, you'd be all for it and you know it.

Signature

"Don't taze me, bro!
<Bzzztzzztzzztzzt>
Owwwwwwwwwwwwww"
            --Andrew Meyer

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 23 Dec 2007 16:03 GMT
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:14:50 -0000, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>I know what you mean. Cops break every law in the book and nothing is
>ever done to them. Look at the taser scandals.

EMFBI, but are you too stupid to see that your beliefs contradict each
other?

Signature

Half drunk is a waste of money.

John David Galt - 19 Dec 2007 22:54 GMT
> Cool. Wonder how many times a cop got cited for the same offense?
> Or how many times a cop spotted a violation while he was yacking away
> on his and driving?

I understand that radios which use push-to-talk mikes (such as police
radios and CBs) are exempt.

I wonder if anybody yet makes a kit that allows a cell phone to be
wired up to work (and look) that way?
Nate Nagel - 19 Dec 2007 23:03 GMT
>>Cool. Wonder how many times a cop got cited for the same offense?
>>Or how many times a cop spotted a violation while he was yacking away
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I wonder if anybody yet makes a kit that allows a cell phone to be
> wired up to work (and look) that way?

Um... Nextel?

I believe AT&T offers something similar, although I am having enough
trouble getting my new AT&T phone (company just switched from Nextel) to
a) place calls b) answer calls and c) let me hear what the other party
is saying.  I never thought I'd say this, but AT&T at least around here
makes Nextel look positively reliable and functional.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Oscar Voss - 20 Dec 2007 00:56 GMT
[Excess newsgroups snipped]

>> Cool. Wonder how many times a cop got cited for the same offense?
>> Or how many times a cop spotted a violation while he was yacking away
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I wonder if anybody yet makes a kit that allows a cell phone to be
> wired up to work (and look) that way?

My own Verizon Wireless cellphone has a "push to talk" feature (which I
don't use) to connect directly to other similarly-set-up phones, like a
walkie-talkie and without going through a cell tower network.  Depending on
how the Chicago ordinance is worded, it might provide a loophole for such a
phone.

--
Oscar Voss - oscar.voss@comcast.net - Arlington VA

my Hot Springs and Highways pages:  http://home.comcast.net/~oscar.voss/
Hawaii Highways:  http://www.hawaiihighways.com/
Scott in SoCal - 20 Dec 2007 02:52 GMT
>My own Verizon Wireless cellphone has a "push to talk" feature (which I
>don't use) to connect directly to other similarly-set-up phones, like a
>walkie-talkie and without going through a cell tower network.

What makes you think that your voice data does not travel through
Verizon's cell tower network?
Oscar Voss - 20 Dec 2007 08:22 GMT
>>My own Verizon Wireless cellphone has a "push to talk" feature (which I
>>don't use) to connect directly to other similarly-set-up phones, like a
>>walkie-talkie and without going through a cell tower network.
>
> What makes you think that your voice data does not travel through
> Verizon's cell tower network?

As I (mis-?)understand the technology, the voice data goes directly from one
phone to the other (within range), and can do so even in areas without cell
towers or cellular service.  Of course, not ever having used push-to-talk,
let alone in the remote areas I've visited lately, I can't vouch for that.

--
Oscar Voss - oscar.voss@comcast.net - Arlington VA

my Hot Springs and Highways pages:  http://home.comcast.net/~oscar.voss/
Hawaii Highways:  http://www.hawaiihighways.com/
Scott in SoCal - 20 Dec 2007 14:37 GMT
>>>My own Verizon Wireless cellphone has a "push to talk" feature (which I
>>>don't use) to connect directly to other similarly-set-up phones, like a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>phone to the other (within range), and can do so even in areas without cell
>towers or cellular service.  

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question530.htm
Harry K - 20 Dec 2007 16:13 GMT
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:22:58 -0500, "Oscar Voss"
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks, interesting read and clears it up.  The signal does go through
the normal tower relays.  I really don't see the purpose of it
though.  PTT systems are a pain the a**, especially when someone gets
on who doesn't understand the "push and let up" bit and the time to
connect appears to be the same.

I set up to run convoy with BIL in two cars for 400 miles.  Bought
walkie talkies.  Worked great on his an my end but totally no good at
all from the women's end.  Basically resulted in no useable
communications and that was after holding a short training session
before starting out and repeating it at each of the first two stops.
Finally gave up.

Neat feature though.

Harry K
davidjcorcoran@gmail.com - 19 Dec 2007 19:40 GMT
On Dec 19, 12:14 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://cbs2chicago.com/local/cell.phone.ban.2.614044.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> More criminal coddling BS. Now look for the child molesters to also claim
> "hey - nobody told me it was illegal."

That's a little difference. Child molestation is illegal everywhere.

For instance, I was on my cell phone on the SB Edens while driving
last May. Had I continued talking and driving into Chicago I would
have received a ticket. I'm from Idaho, not Illinois, and was just
passing through. I could have received a ticket, but I had no idea
cell phones were illegal. It's just like at every state line (except
like NH) it says "Buckle up! Click it-or ticket" or whatever.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 19 Dec 2007 19:42 GMT
On Dec 19, 12:40 pm, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
<davidjcorco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's a little difference. Child molestation is illegal everywhere.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> cell phones were illegal. It's just like at every state line (except
> like NH) it says "Buckle up! Click it-or ticket" or whatever.

Hell with that. It's common sense not to drive while yakking on a cell
phone. Only an idiot needs a law to tell him not to do it.
Jason Pawloski - 20 Dec 2007 01:51 GMT
On Dec 19, 11:40 am, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
<davidjcorco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 12:14 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
every law? Get real.
davidjcorcoran@gmail.com - 20 Dec 2007 05:29 GMT
> On Dec 19, 11:40 am, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
> every law? Get real.

I would say that for road laws it is. 95% of laws are common to all
states in terms of roads and every other state that I know of posts
any changes from the norm at state line crossings. Cell phones being
legal is the norm at this point.
mcl2@pitt.edu - 20 Dec 2007 07:16 GMT
On Dec 20, 12:29 am, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
<davidjcorco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Cell phones being
> legal is the norm at this point.

That is where the problem is.

Mick
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 20 Dec 2007 18:41 GMT
On Dec 20, 12:29 am, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
<davidjcorco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
> > every law? Get real.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a very basic tenant of law.

I don't see any signs saying one must be of a certain age to drive or
indeed have a driver's license, but that's the law and everyone knows
it.

> I would say that for road laws it is. 95% of laws are common to all
> states in terms of roads and every other state that I know of posts
> any changes from the norm at state line crossings. Cell phones being
> legal is the norm at this point.

Cell phone usage while driving is illegal in some states, but they
don't have warning signs at the borders.

Someone mentioned speed limit signs.  Actually there are default city
and rural speed limits for each state (they're listed in a road atlas
chart) if the street is not posted.

As to this specific situation, I can't help but suspect the Chicago
restriction is well publicized.   Just out of curiosity, does anyone
know what the latest AAA Tour book says about it in the Chicago city
section?
Brent P - 20 Dec 2007 19:11 GMT
> On Dec 20, 12:29 am, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
><davidjcorco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
>> > every law? Get real.
>
> "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a very basic tenant of law.

Do you know every law? There must be millions of pages of
city,county,state, and federal law. Even the so-called elected
legislators don't read or know what's in the bills they put into law. Nobody
besides those that wrote it read the few hundred pages of the patriot
act before it was made law. That's why titles like 'Patriot Act' are
chosen, because that's as far as many legislators go. The summaries are
also often rather misleading too.

I'll make up an example, call it the 'child health assurance act of 2012'
The summary is 'An act to protect children from disease using
vaccinations'. Now who could vote against that? Well deeper in the law it
will make it so people harmed by the vaccines cannot sue the drug
companies, it will mandate Hg in the vaccines, it will force local schools
to get 100% of the kids to take them or lose federal funding, etc and so
forth. That's how legislation works in this country. The devil is down in
the details. Anyone voting against this fictional example of a bill would
be labeled as 'hating children' or some such.

My personal experience shows that judges and cops don't even know the law.
When confronted on their ignorance they will use power with statements
like 'I know the law' or 'you can't tell me what the law is' or 'how dare
you ask me to read the law'. They will refuse to even look at the law as
written and go about their jobs doing what they are told.

The US is a nation of ticky-tacky laws that are selectively enforced and
enforcement of what some people think is the law. Few actually read the
laws and legislation. Those who do are typically called 'kooks' and worse
because of what they find is unbelievable by the masses who think the law
is what they are told it is and are too lazy to read it.

IMO It would probably only take a third of the people to know 10% of what
has been going on to have public hangings by morning as mobs with
pitchforks and torches storm the offices of elected office holders.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 20 Dec 2007 20:28 GMT
> Do you know every law? There must be millions of pages of
> city,county,state, and federal law.  . . .

No, I don't know every law, but it doesn't matter.  Ignorance of the
law is no excuse.

But the reality is that most laws don't apply to everyday people.  For
example, someone running a restaurant must know sanitation laws,
someone driving a truck must know CDL laws.  I know nothing about that
stuff, but do know if I were to engage in such activities I'd have to
learn about it.  I know nothing about the laws regarding travelling or
trading with Cuba, but again I'd find out if that was my interest.

A citizen does have a responsibility to keep up with things.  For
example behavior that might have been legal (though perhaps rude) 50
years ago today might be illegal as harassment.

Let's not forget we citizens have more rights than we did 50 years
ago, too.  No "Miranda" back then.  Some old laws have been repealed.

> Even the so-called elected
> legislators don't read or know what's in the bills they put into law.

Actually, usually new laws are passed after hearings by specialized
committees and review by professional staffs.  Occassionally some bad
stuff slips through and we hear about it, but most it's not a problem.
Brent P - 20 Dec 2007 20:37 GMT
>> Do you know every law? There must be millions of pages of
>> city,county,state, and federal law.  . . .
>
> No, I don't know every law, but it doesn't matter.  Ignorance of the
> law is no excuse.

Then you must find the 'I'll find something to charge you with' sort of
enforcement that goes on today quite acceptable?

> But the reality is that most laws don't apply to everyday people.

If that lets you sleep at night. But there is much in bills that on the
surface do not appear to apply to everyday people that does. You have to
read everything. There's no telling whats down in the fine print or an
admendment that was attached.

>  For
> example, someone running a restaurant must know sanitation laws,
> someone driving a truck must know CDL laws.  I know nothing about that
> stuff, but do know if I were to engage in such activities I'd have to
> learn about it.  I know nothing about the laws regarding travelling or
> trading with Cuba, but again I'd find out if that was my interest.

I'll wager you don't even know all the laws for driving an ordinary
passenger vehicle. I know I don't know them all, but I know far more than
the traffic cops. I have to as a bicyclist since some cops don't like
vehicular bicycling.

> A citizen does have a responsibility to keep up with things.  For
> example behavior that might have been legal (though perhaps rude) 50
> years ago today might be illegal as harassment.

But our legislators find it to be too much to keep up with and that is
their  J O B. How are we as individuals supposed to do this? Read the
thousands of pages of legislation?

> Let's not forget we citizens have more rights than we did 50 years
> ago, too.  No "Miranda" back then.  Some old laws have been repealed.

More rights? No. You're talking procedure. Miranda doesn't grant any
rights.

>> Even the so-called elected
>> legislators don't read or know what's in the bills they put into law.

> Actually, usually new laws are passed after hearings by specialized
> committees and review by professional staffs.  Occassionally some bad
> stuff slips through and we hear about it, but most it's not a problem.

The patriot act, given to the congress critters 45 minutes before vote?
How about the immigration bill that had to be leaked to the public by a
single senator because the rest of the senate wanted to keep it secret
from the people? I know, I'm a kook.... I should just trust our loving
government.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 21 Dec 2007 04:32 GMT
> > No, I don't know every law, but it doesn't matter.  Ignorance of the
> > law is no excuse.
>
> Then you must find the 'I'll find something to charge you with' sort of
> enforcement that goes on today quite acceptable?

I strongly doubt I'll be charged with violating the sanitation code
since I don't operate a restaurant, indeed, serve food.  I don't
operate a tractor trailer either.

> If that lets you sleep at night. But there is much in bills that on the
> surface do not appear to apply to everyday people that does. You have to
> read everything. There's no telling whats down in the fine print or an
> admendment that was attached.

Actually, the criminal code is pretty straight forward.  It's out on
state websites if you want to see it.  They don't bury bank robbery
under auto theft.

Where bills get muddled are in financial and national policy, such as
allocating funds to build a new dam buried in a bill to build a new
post office.  That does not affect us.

> I'll wager you don't even know all the laws for driving an ordinary
> passenger vehicle.

I must be doing something right because I haven't add any problems.
Further, there are motoring advocacy groups that would scream bloody
murder if such "secret" laws were being enforced.
Brent P - 21 Dec 2007 05:57 GMT
>> > No, I don't know every law, but it doesn't matter.  Ignorance of the
>> > law is no excuse.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> since I don't operate a restaurant, indeed, serve food.  I don't
> operate a tractor trailer either.

But you might be charged with a catch all, some part of the vehicle code
you don't know about, or just something the cop thinks is the law but
isn't.

I had a car in my driveway. I went and looked up the local oridances
about storing it in my driveway. Made sure I complied to the letter. Cop
wrote tickets on laws that don't exist. The adminstrative hearing they
were upheld. The 'judge' refused to read the actual laws. Thankfully it
wasn't my car and I didn't have to pay the tickets, but it still pisses
me off.

>> If that lets you sleep at night. But there is much in bills that on the
>> surface do not appear to apply to everyday people that does. You have to
>> read everything. There's no telling whats down in the fine print or an
>> admendment that was attached.

> Actually, the criminal code is pretty straight forward.  It's out on
> state websites if you want to see it.  They don't bury bank robbery
> under auto theft.

Read the military commissions act some time.

>> I'll wager you don't even know all the laws for driving an ordinary
>> passenger vehicle.

> I must be doing something right because I haven't add any problems.

That's not evidence of anything. It just means you aren't selectively
enforced upon.

> Further, there are motoring advocacy groups that would scream bloody
> murder if such "secret" laws were being enforced.

They are secret laws, they selectively enforced laws or laws cops think
exist but don't. Like the cops who said I couldn't use the roadway with a
bicycle.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 21 Dec 2007 04:38 GMT
> More rights? No. You're talking procedure. Miranda doesn't grant any
> rights.

Actually, a heck of a lot of legislation you're complaining of deals
with boring procedural matters, not new limits on stuff we can do.

Miranda and related court decisions most certainly did improve the
protections for citizens.  It did grant rights.  Be happy you weren't
around years ago.
Alan Baker - 21 Dec 2007 06:12 GMT
In article
<82eb9e32-b622-45ef-8a71-5289f1d8d334@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

> > More rights? No. You're talking procedure. Miranda doesn't grant any
> > rights.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> protections for citizens.  It did grant rights.  Be happy you weren't
> around years ago.

You are simply incorrect.

The "Miranda" decision granted no rights.

Signature

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Brent P - 21 Dec 2007 06:21 GMT
>> More rights? No. You're talking procedure. Miranda doesn't grant any
>> rights.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> protections for citizens.  It did grant rights.  Be happy you weren't
> around years ago.

No new rights were granted. Miranda is informing people of their rights.
ARG! And at least we had the rights that werer protected years ago even if
government wouldn't tell us and we had to learn it on our own. Now so
many rights have effectively no protections, the various work arounds that
make any protections moot.
k_flynn@lycos.com - 20 Dec 2007 20:09 GMT
> Cell phone usage while driving is illegal in some states, but they
> don't have warning signs at the borders.

Don't they? I thought they did.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 20 Dec 2007 20:34 GMT
> > Cell phone usage while driving is illegal in some states, but they
> > don't have warning signs at the borders.
>
> Don't they? I thought they did.

The only sign they have is "SEATBELTS MUST BE WORN", and "LIGHTS ON
WIPERS ON".  They used to have "TRUCKERS MUST USE NATIONAL NETWORK',
but that law was struck down by the courts.

There are a great many roads crossing into the state, some as major
highways, some as tiny 15 mph lanes.  I don't think it's pratical to
post the whole state code at every entrance.

In a separate thread there was talk of signs on NYC TBTA bridges
prohibiting photography.  It was suggested that posting may be null
and void since the rule may not have been properly and officially
adopted and publicized by the TBTA board.  I don't know myself.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 21 Dec 2007 07:46 GMT
On Dec 19, 10:29 pm, "davidjcorco...@gmail.com"
<davidjcorco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say that for road laws it is. 95% of laws are common to all
> states in terms of roads and every other state that I know of posts
> any changes from the norm at state line crossings. Cell phones being
> legal is the norm at this point.

Now that's a stupid argument. You tell a judge in say texas that, yes
i did break a texas law, but in other states my actions would have
been legal - and see how far that gets you.
Brent P - 20 Dec 2007 06:11 GMT
> Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
> every law? Get real.

Well considering representives on the state and federal levels don't
bother reading what they are passing into law..... and the volume of
material makes it impossible for the ordinary person to know every law.
Larry Bud - 20 Dec 2007 14:40 GMT
> Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
> every law? Get real.

Of course it is.

In your world, let's not post speed limit signs.  Everyone should know
the law for each road, without states tell us, right?
Jason Pawloski - 20 Dec 2007 16:32 GMT
> > Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
> > every law? Get real.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In your world, let's not post speed limit signs.  Everyone should know
> the law for each road, without states tell us, right?

No, you idiot. You completely missed the point. The actual law is that
you must obey the speed limit, not what the actual speed limit is. Do
you think the actual speed limit on each road is statutory? Man, where
do you ignorant guys come from?
Larry Bud - 20 Dec 2007 18:24 GMT
> > > Sooooo... it's the states responsibility to ensure everyone knows
> > > every law? Get real.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> you think the actual speed limit on each road is statutory? Man, where
> do you ignorant guys come from?

Merry Christmas to you too.

So how is someone from out of state to know that using a cell phone is
illegal on the roads of Chicago?
JG - 20 Dec 2007 22:36 GMT
> For instance, I was on my cell phone on the SB Edens while driving
> last May. Had I continued talking and driving into Chicago I would
> have received a ticket. I'm from Idaho, not Illinois, and was just
> passing through. I could have received a ticket, but I had no idea
> cell phones were illegal. It's just like at every state line (except
> like NH) it says "Buckle up! Click it-or ticket" or whatever.

Not likely that a IL state trooper would enforce the city ordinance on
the expressway system...JG
Brent P - 20 Dec 2007 22:54 GMT
>> For instance, I was on my cell phone on the SB Edens while driving
>> last May. Had I continued talking and driving into Chicago I would
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Not likely that a IL state trooper would enforce the city ordinance on
> the expressway system...JG

King Richard II, aka Mayor Daley got special dispensation from the state
to have the CPD patrol the interstates within the city limits. At first
it was comedy where the CPD, not having run speed traps in decades showed
up on the interstates with some 1960s looking speed radar equipment that
attached to the roll down side widows like a drive-in movie theater
speaker or a drive-in tray or something.

I still occasionally see CPD with someone pulled over, so I assume the
dispensation is still valid.
k_flynn@lycos.com - 20 Dec 2007 23:23 GMT
> In article <c1a6fce0-9ab2-49f3-b1f9-585b52e2e...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, JG wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I still occasionally see CPD with someone pulled over, so I assume the
> dispensation is still valid.

Denver PD does enforcement on the freeways within the city limit
rather than Colorado State Patrol. Is this standard for interstates in
large cities?
Rich Piehl - 20 Dec 2007 23:38 GMT
>> In article <c1a6fce0-9ab2-49f3-b1f9-585b52e2e...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, JG wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> rather than Colorado State Patrol. Is this standard for interstates in
> large cities?

St. Louis City does it.  Even to the point of doing truck inspections
including portable scales.  And I see lots of small municipalities do
speed enforcement in the metro area.  Happens all the time.  Sometimes
they'll even do a joint operation with Missouri Highway Patrol.  I've
seen Highway Patrol, locals and county guys all sitting lined up on an
on ramp just waiting for the next one.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

Signature

That's one of the problems in this country
The nuts don't know they're nuts.

                      --Jeff Foxworthy

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 21 Dec 2007 04:35 GMT
> Denver PD does enforcement on the freeways within the city limit
> rather than Colorado State Patrol. Is this standard for interstates in
> large cities

Philadelphia always handled its own enforcement.  Recently the state
police were supposed to take it over to free up city cops for other
work, but that may have not gone through.
Matthew T. Russotto - 27 Dec 2007 18:38 GMT
>Philadelphia always handled its own enforcement.  Recently the state
>police were supposed to take it over to free up city cops for other
>work, but that may have not gone through.

It did.  Which is too bad, as getting a speeding ticket on the
Philadelphia part of the Schuylkill expressway used to be quite rare,
despite the fact that the 50mph speed limit ended up more the center of a
bimodal distribution than a maximum.

I believe the Vine Street Expressway is still patrolled by the city.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Richard Carlson, N9JIG - 21 Dec 2007 03:52 GMT
> In article
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>  

First off, Chicago PD can patrol the Interstates within the City Limits
all it wants without any "dispensation from the state" (of which there
is none). There is no need for permission for any local law enforcement
agency to patrol any Interstate within its city limits. As a practical
matter the State Police has primary jurisdiction on Illinois Interstate
highways, but county and city police do sometimes patrol Interstates and
other expressways.

Secondly, the CPD does not actually patrol the Interstates within
Chicago anyway on a regular basis, over 10 years ago the State and City
made a deal where the State Police would take over patrol of the Chicago
expressways in return for the city allowing lottery booths to be set up
at O'Hare. Before this CPD ran a Traffic Unit that patrolled Chicago
expressways.

All that said, CPD can and does occasionally work on expressways but
most traffic stops that CPD have on the expressway originated on surface
streets. In addition CPDD still handles patrol on the Chicago Skyway,
which isn't really an Interstate these days.
Brent P - 21 Dec 2007 05:51 GMT
>> In article
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> I still occasionally see CPD with someone pulled over, so I assume the
>> dispensation is still valid.

> First off, Chicago PD can patrol the Interstates within the City Limits
> all it wants without any "dispensation from the state" (of which there
> is none).

Here I go again where I, the only person who remembers the news some
years back has go digging for it. I'm just that kooky guy who has a
memory longer than ten minutes.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010208/ai_n13896528

Local police join forces with troopers
Chicago Sun-Times,  Feb 8, 2001  by FRAN SPIELMAN

Chicago police officers have written 82 tickets for speeding, driving on
the shoulder and following too closely since Monday, when they joined the
State Police in patrolling 53 miles of city expressways.

Police Supt. Terry Hillard quietly negotiated the change in response to
complaints that speeding was rampant because State Police patrols were
not visible enough.
<...>
"The agreement was made in 1985 under (former Mayor) Harold Washington.
I wanted to change it under (former Police Supt. Matt) Rodriguez, and
Rodriguez said it would cost too much money. Rodriguez didn't understand
that the saving of lives is not about a price."

Over time, Beavers predicted, Chicago police officers would write "five
times as many tickets" as the State Police.
<...>

> There is no need for permission for any local law enforcement
> agency to patrol any Interstate within its city limits. As a practical
> matter the State Police has primary jurisdiction on Illinois Interstate
> highways, but county and city police do sometimes patrol Interstates and
> other expressways.

Then why did city of chicago need an agreement with the state to do it?
Daley, who rips up airports in the middle of the night could have just
sent the cops out there if what you say were at all true.

Suburban cops are quite obviously not allowed to set up their
speed traps on the interstates. Sorry. Otherwise every suburb would have
it's revenue gathering cops on the interstates where the big money is.
Instead they limit themselves to where interstates become state routes
and US hwys. IL394, IL53, etc. There's got to be a reason one doesn't see
the local yokels out the expressways running radar. I vaguely remember the
town I grew up in getting smacked down because they started running
speed traps on the interstates that go through it.

You won't see a local cop or a c(r)ook county mounty on the I290/IL53
section running a speed trap. You will see them in the plain IL53 part.
Same with 41, where it is I94, no local cops, north of the edens spur,
local PD. The local PDs do not set up south of the split IME. I've never
seen a suburban cop running a speed trap on I294, I90/94, I55, I57, I355,
or I290. Ever. When I see a local cop on an expressway, he isn't even in
the same town that's on the side of his cruiser and generally diving
about 80-85 mph.

It's the ISP's turf either by agreement or by law. I don't know which,
but I know the suburban towns aren't fishing on the expressway out of the
goodness of their hearts. Without an agreement from the state, they
aren't out there.

> Secondly, the CPD does not actually patrol the Interstates within
> Chicago anyway on a regular basis, over 10 years ago the State and City
> made a deal where the State Police would take over patrol of the Chicago
> expressways in return for the city allowing lottery booths to be set up
> at O'Hare. Before this CPD ran a Traffic Unit that patrolled Chicago
> expressways.

You seem to be refering to the 1985 agreement... from the same
article:

"State Police have had exclusive control over Chicago area expressways
since 1985. That's when 12 months of negotiations between Washington and
Gov. James R. Thompson produced an agreement that transferred
responsibility to the state in exchange for the right to sell lottery
tickets at O'Hare Airport."

> All that said, CPD can and does occasionally work on expressways but
> most traffic stops that CPD have on the expressway originated on surface
> streets.

Another piece of two+ decades out of date information no doubt.

> In addition CPDD still handles patrol on the Chicago Skyway,
> which isn't really an Interstate these days.

It's a private toll road 'leased' to sintra, represented by Rudy Guiliani
in the USA.
David Johnston - 21 Dec 2007 07:26 GMT
>> There is no need for permission for any local law enforcement
>> agency to patrol any Interstate within its city limits. As a practical
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Then why did city of chicago need an agreement with the state to do it?

Technically according to the article you found (and nice work on
that), the City of Chicago had an agreement not to do it.  It was some
kind of bizarre revenue-stream tradeoff.
Richard Carlson, N9JIG - 21 Dec 2007 12:04 GMT
> >> In article
> >> <c1a6fce0-9ab2-49f3-b1f9-585b52e2e74e@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, JG
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> times as many tickets" as the State Police.
> <...>

That story is almost 7 tears old, and has been forgotten by everyone
involved. Hillard is long gone from CPD, even his replacement has
retired. I haven't seen a CPD car working the expressway since then,
haven't heard them on the radio either. Occasionally I hear a District
car assigned to assist the ISP or respond to a particularly bad crash
but that's it.

> > There is no need for permission for any local law enforcement
> > agency to patrol any Interstate within its city limits. As a practical
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> goodness of their hearts. Without an agreement from the state, they
> aren't out there.

There are several suburban towns who do enforcement on local
Interstates, it is legal and happens all the time. Again, there is no
need for permission from the State for CPD or other local police
agencies to patrol any Interstate highway.

As a matter of practice, the majority of Interstate patrol and
enforcement is handled by the State Police, they are the primary
jurisdiction on any Interstate highway.

Cook County occasionally works the Eden's Spur (I-94), I have seen them
working I-290 and occasionally I-57. I have also seen Kankakee County
and Kankakee PD working speed details on I-57, occasionally Bradley or
Bourbonnais will assist. On the Edens (I-94) (south of the Spur) there
are a couple suburbs that work traffic and overweight enforcement.

While local agencies are certainly not encouraged by ISP to run radar or
other enforcement on Interstates, they are allowed by law.

> > Secondly, the CPD does not actually patrol the Interstates within
> > Chicago anyway on a regular basis, over 10 years ago the State and City
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Another piece of two+ decades out of date information no doubt.

No, actually current information.

> > In addition CPDD still handles patrol on the Chicago Skyway,
> > which isn't really an Interstate these days.
>
> It's a private toll road 'leased' to sintra, represented by Rudy Guiliani
> in the USA.

The Skyway's I-90 designation was removed several years before it was
leased to Sintra, supposedly the city discovered it was never correctly
designated, although I think they were starting the wheels in motion for
the lease arrangement. CPD had retained Skyway patrols after the 1985
agreement (Wow, it has been 22 years already!?!?!)
JG - 22 Dec 2007 19:03 GMT
On Dec 21, 6:04 am, "Richard Carlson, N9JIG" <use...@usenet.net>
wrote:

> There are several suburban towns who do enforcement on local
> Interstates, it is legal and happens all the time. Again, there is no
> need for permission from the State for CPD or other local police
> agencies to patrol any Interstate highway.

I have never seen a local running radar on any tollroad, even though
they would clean up in speeding fines to pay for the local fire
resources that the tollway gets.
necromancer - 19 Dec 2007 19:55 GMT
SFB spewed:

<< ECP removed >>

> http://cbs2chicago.com/local/cell.phone.ban.2.614044.html

<< snip article >>

> More criminal coddling BS. Now look for the child molesters to also claim
> "hey - nobody told me it was illegal."

Child molesting is almost universally reviled by normal people (people
unlike yourself). Only rabid, foaming kOoks like like you worry about
cell phones.

Signature

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," admits to being a
Red Light Runner on a regular basis:

"All the paranoids out there like to claim that RLCs are
set up to catch even law-abiding drivers.  If that was
true, i should have been caught but never have been!!"

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a,
LBMHB/lb-VH, POA, aunt millie ad nauseum) 2/22/07

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/2rwacl
Message ID: Xns98DFD82CC5A39riemann1850yahoocom@207.217.125.201

Larry Bud - 20 Dec 2007 14:38 GMT
On Dec 19, 2:55 pm, necromancer
> SFB spewed:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Child molesting is almost universally reviled by normal people (people
> unlike yourself).

And universality (is that a word?) is the real issue.

If a city can just make up any kind of traffic law that is 180 degrees
opposite from nearly everywhere else, travelling would be chaos.  What
if a city suddenly decided that Green meant "Stop" and Red meant "Go"?

The simple solution is for a new sign to be created, that is
universally known throughout the country, just like Stop signs, yield
signs, pedestrian crossing, Railroad crossing, Merge signs, etc.
necromancer - 21 Dec 2007 09:54 GMT
Larry Bud:

> If a city can just make up any kind of traffic law that is 180 degrees
> opposite from nearly everywhere else, travelling would be chaos.  What
> if a city suddenly decided that Green meant "Stop" and Red meant "Go"?

Some times they do - not the green=stop/red=go, but for someone who
has trouble recognizing colors or is just plain not paying
attention....

http://www.worldofnecromancer.org/pics/page%2019.html

--
F ools
E gomaniacs &
M orons
A ssociation
John David Galt - 20 Dec 2007 22:06 GMT
Britain is now considering sending drivers who use cell phones to jail
for two years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nmobile220.xml
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.