 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2008Undercover Cops Nab Drivers Who Won't Stop For Peds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25707777/ Police pose as pedestrians to nab errant drivers The undercover operation is designed to promote crosswalk safety updated 4:49 p.m. MT, Wed., July. 16, 2008 CHICAGO - So why did Officer Grace Delgado try to cross the road? To remind motorists that they must stop whenever someone steps off the curb into a crosswalk. In an unusual undercover operation, Delgado posed as a pedestrian on a busy street while fellow officers waited for drivers to barrel past her in violation of a law that requires them yield at crosswalks, even if there is no stop sign. Chicago this year joined a growing number of big cities and small towns that are sending officers into traffic to make motorists pay more attention to pedestrians. "People, they don't care," said Delgado, whose bright pink baseball hat and orange blouse made her especially tough to miss. "It's 'Get out of my way.' The whole mentality is 'Get out of my way.'" (snip) Ticket most effective enforcement tool Officers gave motorists a brief lecture about the law, then sent relieved drivers on their way. But police understand that the only thing more effective than a lecture from a police officer is a lecture and a ticket. "If there's really no threat of getting a ticket for it, you're not going to really pay attention," said officer Chuck Trendle, who was working with Delgado. (snip) --------------------------------- I like this idea and wish they'd hit these deadly drivers with a $1000 fine but i do see one problem. Stupid kids with no intention of crossing the street are gonna start stepping into the crosswalk just to force people to stop and that will cause jams. >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25707777/ > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >the street are gonna start stepping into the crosswalk just to force >people to stop and that will cause jams. All well and good except that the enforcement could be dangerous to the officer's health. Yeah the law says you have to stop, but, not when it means doing so could cause an accident. Furthermore, the law also says that YOU, the pedestrian, MUST use caution. That is, you just can't walk out in front of a car and expect that car to stop on a dime. I believe it was in Boston they pulled this same sting. From the video I saw, the officer boldly walked in front of oncoming traffic. Within two steps, he signaled for the offender to be stopped. Bullshit. The person on foot has to be one ignorant dumbass to cross a street with an approaching vehicle so close that vehicle can't stop in time. Furthermore, if you're standing on the sidewalk, not in the crosswalk, how am I supposed to know you want to cross the street? I stop, I get slammed in the rear and wind up in the hospital. All because the law says I have to stop? Read the damn law officer. > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:37:10 -0500, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Yeah the law says you have to stop, but, not when it means doing so > could cause an accident. In what state and what law gives that disclaimer? For example, in MA, Chapter 89: Section 11 says nothing of the requirement to stop being lifted if the driver thinks stopping could cause an accident. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-11.htm > Furthermore, the law also says that YOU, the pedestrian, MUST use > caution. That is, you just can't walk out in front of a car and expect > that car to stop on a dime. True, but that does not lift the drivers requirement to stop. > I believe it was in Boston they pulled this same sting. From the video > I saw, the officer boldly walked in front of oncoming traffic. Within [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > slammed in the rear and wind up in the hospital. All because the law > says I have to stop? Read the damn law officer. Seems to me they did read the “damn law”. How they took advantage of it’s wording may be suspect, however. On Jul 17, 10:42 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Furthermore, if you're standing on the sidewalk, not in the crosswalk, > > how am I supposed to know you want to cross the street? I stop, I get > > slammed in the rear and wind up in the hospital. All because the law > > says I have to stop? Read the damn law officer. If the person behind you is following at a reasonable distance, they would not slam your back end - no matter how fast you stop. If they are not following at a reasonable distance, you should slow down, no matter how mad the tailgater gets. Mick >> All well and good except that the enforcement could be dangerous to >> the officer's health. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >lifted if the driver thinks stopping could cause an accident. >http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-11.htm Necessity is in general a defense; it doesn't need to be explicitly stated. >> Furthermore, the law also says that YOU, the pedestrian, MUST use >> caution. That is, you just can't walk out in front of a car and expect >> that car to stop on a dime. > >True, but that does not lift the drivers requirement to stop. If the police are failing to use caution (and thus breaking the law themselves), there may be a defense there. Of course, the cops are simply going to lie. They'll step into the crosswalk when a car is literally too close to stop, then claim otherwise in court.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Furthermore, if you're standing on the sidewalk, not in the crosswalk, > how am I supposed to know you want to cross the street? I stop, I get > slammed in the rear and wind up in the hospital. All because the law > says I have to stop? Read the damn law officer. I hear you and i hope the cops aren't too zealous in enforcing this rule. This is not like speeding or drunk driving or red light running. Those are 100% voluntary crimes while this sometimes isn't. > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25707777/ > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > slammed in the rear and wind up in the hospital. All because the law > says I have to stop? Read the damn law officer. I walk quite a bit and when I use the crosswalks, I'll step off the curb, but if there's a vehicle that's too close to stop, I won't proceed and walk in front of it. I'll wait for that one to pass, BUT get ready to step out further so that the NEXT vehicle sees that I'm crossing. For traffic coming the other way, they've had plenty of time to see me, so if they're not already stopped, I WILL walk in front of them. "Frickin' HIT ME! I DARE you!!" Hey, you can't be timid while using the crosswalk or you'll NEVER get across the road! I do agree that the crosser should be off the curb and not standing on the sidewalk. I've seen such sidewalk pedestrians get mad at the flow of traffic that wouldn't let them cross, but, as you said, they could just be standing there. As soon as you step off that curb, most drivers will figure you're going to cross. Or am I being too generous by saying "most"?... John B. > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25707777/ > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why don't you just wait for a break in traffic or a green light in your direction? A little common sense helps a lot on both sides. I simply won't drive in Bethesda anymore because a) they do "stings" like this and b) they're trying to be *so* pedestrian friendly at the expense of motorists that the peds will now just step out right in front of a car that has a green light. I don't need the aggravation, I take my dollars elsewhere. nate > I walk quite a bit and when I use the crosswalks, I'll step off the curb, > but if there's a vehicle that's too close to stop, I won't proceed and walk > in front of it. I'll wait for that one to pass, BUT get ready to step out > further so that the NEXT vehicle sees that I'm crossing. For traffic coming > the other way, they've had plenty of time to see me, so if they're not > already stopped, I WILL walk in front of them. "Frickin' HIT ME! I DARE [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > traffic that wouldn't let them cross, but, as you said, they could just be > standing there. As soon as you step off that curb, most drivers will figure > you're going to cross. Or am I being too generous by saying "most"?... > > John B.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >Why don't you just wait for a break in traffic or a green light in >your direction? A little common sense helps a lot on both sides. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >front of a car that has a green light. I don't need the aggravation, >I take my dollars elsewhere. >ate Because the crosswalks are on a VERY busy street with no traffic signals nearby, but besides that, the cars are supposed to STOP for pedestrians - not have pedestrians wait forever for the road to be clear. Isn't that the whole point of a crosswalk?? John B. > > I walk quite a bit and when I use the crosswalks, I'll step off the curb, > > but if there's a vehicle that's too close to stop, I won't proceed and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > John B. you have crosswalks but no traffic lights? How does that work (besides badly?) yes, you can say that cars should stop for pedestrians and that is nice in concept but as a driver what I've seen far too often is inconsiderate pedestrians making an unholy mess of traffic - e.g. one ped will step off the curb, traffic will stop. Ped will take his sweet time crossing the street. Just as ped is about to clear the lane, another single ped will step off the sidewalk and leisurely cross the street. After about three of these, even the most even tempered of drivers will be getting impatient... Would it be too hard to cross quickly, and if the area is busy enough to have multiple peds, wait until three or four people are all able to cross at once so as not to hold up traffic? I guess I just don't understand why this is such an issue in so many places. I grew up outside of Pittsburgh which for the most part was pretty easy to get around both on foot and in car. Peds respected drivers, and vice versa. If you were crossing the street and you forced a driver to slow down, you were in the wrong. Likewise, drivers would wait to make a right turn if you were crossing with a green light. But around here there's so many areas where people are just SO self absorbed that they can't think in terms of what's right for all and just think about what's good for *themselves.* nate > yes, you can say that cars should stop for pedestrians and that is > nice in concept but as a driver what I've seen far too often is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > pretty easy to get around both on foot and in car. Peds respected > drivers, and vice versa. I grew up outside of Pittsburgh and live in Pittsburgh. In my experience drivers are very polite to other drivers, but most drivers are horrid for pedestrians. Once at the corner of Bower Hill and Chochran, I was even thrown in the air by a car making aleft hand turn through the crosswalk. I was 17 and I was lucky, so I was not hurt. The driver acted like it was my fault. As in "you shouldn't been in the crosswalk when your light is grean when someone is trying to make a left hand turn" If someone tries to pull that stuff, now I raise my voice to the point that bystanders will stop and watch and (hopefully) call the police. If you think the drivers here show a proper level of respect, that likely means you are breaking the law and endangering pedestrians. I have to say it how it is. The fact that most drivers here act thay way doesn't make it right and doesn't make it legal. Mick > yes, you can say that cars should stop for pedestrians and that is > nice in concept but as a driver what I've seen far too often is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lane, another single ped will step off the sidewalk and leisurely > cross the street. There is poor traffic planning here, yes. But I'm not sure why you say the pedestrians are "inconsiderate". A pedestrian crossing the street at a crosswalk is a right, why should they rush? Why should they stop walking because a car is waiting? I have seen drivers stop when they see someone standing at the edge of a busy road with no crosswalk trying to cross, sure - but then for every one that does that, there are literally tens of thousands that don't - and why should they when there is no cross walk? The road is for cars. They neither know nor care whether the pedestrian has been there 30 seconds or 30 mintutes In the exact same way, if a driver has to wait a few seconds (or even a minute) for pedestrians to clear, that is simply not the pedestrians responsibity and calling them "inconsiderate" is out of line. The fact is, in Pittsburgh, if a driver had to wait a whole minute for anything less than a few hundred pedestrians to pass, he would typically blow his top and start honking, swearing and such. This is because, in their minds, they somehow have envisioned pedestrians exercising their rights as being "inconsiderate". STOP IT. Besides, it is traffic that makes traffic an unholy mess, rarely (in the US) pedestrians. Mick >>yes, you can say that cars should stop for pedestrians and that is >>nice in concept but as a driver what I've seen far too often is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pedestrian crossing the street at a crosswalk is a right, why should > they rush? Because it's rude not to. Roads, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. are for TRANSPORTATION - e.g. getting from one place to another. If you're looking for somewhere to *amble,* I'd suggest a walking trail in a park. Fortunately, if you're at Pitt, Schenley is close by to you. > Why should they stop walking because a car is waiting? I'm saying all cross TOGETHER so that the "downtime" is minimized. Form a clump, all cross at once. > I have seen drivers stop when they see someone standing at the edge > of a busy road with no crosswalk trying to cross, sure - but then for > every one that does that, there are literally tens of thousands that > don't - and why should they when there is no cross walk? The road is > for cars. They neither know nor care whether the pedestrian has been > there 30 seconds or 30 mintutes If there is no cross walk and the ped is not in the roadway, they should not stop. > In the exact same way, if a driver has to wait a few seconds (or even > a minute) for pedestrians to clear, that is simply not the pedestrians > responsibity and calling them "inconsiderate" is out of line. > The fact is, in Pittsburgh, if a driver had to wait a whole minute for > anything less than a few hundred pedestrians to pass, he would > typically blow his top and start honking, swearing and such. Unless things have changed dramatically in 10 years, you're grossly exaggerating. > This is > because, in their minds, they somehow have envisioned pedestrians > exercising their rights as being "inconsiderate". STOP IT. See, that's the thing. Crossing the road shouldn't be "exercising your rights," it should be a simple task, done quickly and considerately. > Besides, it is traffic that makes traffic an unholy mess, rarely (in > the US) pedestrians. You say that because you're in Pittsburgh where the peds (and drivers) are fairly considerate. There are places where both are downright arrogant. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > I'm saying all cross TOGETHER so that the "downtime" is minimized. Form > a clump, all cross at once. This will happen when drivers all start moving at the same time when the light turns green to maximize throughput. In the USA, sadly I believe it will happen aproximately 3 years after never. > m...@pitt.edu wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Unless things have changed dramatically in 10 years, you're grossly > exaggerating. Not really. A minute is a long time to wait for, say, 25 people each of whom crosses the road in 10 or 12 seconds. When the guy you are waiting for was 50 yards away from the road when you started waiting for pedestrians, it would be hard NOT to get impatien > See, that's the thing. Crossing the road shouldn't be "exercising your > rights," it should be a simple task, done quickly and considerately. That's my point - except I see no obligatioin to go out of ones way to be considerate (I usually do, but it should notbe a requirement). It should not be adeal. > You say that because you're in Pittsburgh where the peds (and drivers) > are fairly considerate. There are places where both are downright arrogant. The drivers are marvelously considerate to other drivers and they are f*cking murder on pedestrians and bike riders. For example, I took a 550 mile bike trip and had people yell things at me 5 times- 4 times in Pittsburgh and once in the other 525 miles. Drivers in Pittsburgh are most definately NOT considerate of pedestrians, that's for sure. Mick >But I'm not sure why you say the pedestrians are "inconsiderate". A >pedestrian crossing the street at a crosswalk is a right, why should >they rush? Why should they stop walking because a car is waiting? If I'm driving a car across a sidewalk into a driveway, why shouldn't I proceed at 1mph? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >yes, you can say that cars should stop for pedestrians and that is >nice in concept but as a driver what I've seen far too often is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >lane, another single ped will step off the sidewalk and leisurely >cross the street. For some reason, they'll do this in Philadelphia. I'm not sure why, as Philadelphia does NOT have this sort of enforcement, and motorists know it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> I walk quite a bit and when I use the crosswalks, I'll step off the curb, >> but if there's a vehicle that's too close to stop, I won't proceed and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >John B. Actually, the point of a crosswalk is to act as a traffic signal the cheap way. When a person steps into it, the light changes to red. If you don't use the crosswalk, you get a ticket for jaywalking. While the car driver gets a ticket for not stopping. It is all about making money. >>> I walk quite a bit and when I use the crosswalks, I'll step off the >>> curb, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Actually, the point of a crosswalk is to act as a traffic signal the > cheap way. Uh, no. > When a person steps into it, the light changes to red. Are you really this stupid? Seriously? I know you get asked that many times per day by total strangers but c'mon. > If you don't use the crosswalk, you get a ticket for jaywalking. No. > While the car driver gets a ticket for not stopping. Or vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter, hit and run... > It is all about making money. Which you can't seem to do. > > "richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > front of a car that has a green light. I don't need the aggravation, > I take my dollars elsewhere. Hopefully they will start enforcing the law as it is written and anywhere you go they will do those stings. If people really HAD common sense? They wouldn't drive as much as they do. Don't hold your breath on that. Mick > If people really HAD common sense? They wouldn't drive as much as > they do. Don't hold your breath on that. It's annoying when a ped steps out in front of you where there is no cross walk and/or waits until you're just a few feet away when biking too. This is a very clever plan...a revenue enhancing plan, but a clever plan nonetheless. Lessee: it takes two or more cops and their cop cars to pull off the directed harassment of the evil motorists what don't stop for adult cop in plain clothes pretending to use crosswalks for the single purpose of entrapment and enriching city treasury. Meanwhile, crooks, dope dealers, terrorists, child molesters, and muggers continue to carry on in their chosen professions, undeterred, while cops waste time harassing civilians in automobiles. Not being a liberal, I thank goodness I was bought up to NOT to deliberately assume, because I was between a pair of painted white lines on a street, I could, with full assurance, step in front of any oncoming, heavy, rolling vehicle and be certain the moron behind the wheel not only saw me, but was automatically going to bring his vehicle to a complete stop so I could pass in front of him and cross the street in absolute safety. I also stop, look and listen at any country railroad crossing I happen to be crossing and don't assume the engineer of any approaching fast freight is going to slow and stop for me. I even stop and look both ways before doing my famous dash across airport runways. > I even stop and look both ways before doing my famous dash across > airport runways. ...forwarded to Homeland Security (!) -Dave > I even stop and look both ways before doing my famous dash across > airport runways. ...forwarded to Homeland Security (!) -Dave >>CHICAGO - So why did Officer Grace Delgado try to cross the road? To >>remind motorists that they must stop whenever someone steps off the curb [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>in violation of a law that requires them yield at crosswalks, even if >>there is no stop sign. They do stings like this all the time in California. At Christmas, the cops dress up like Santa and walk across. There are always at least half a dozen motorcycle officers lying in wait around the corner ready to chase down anyone who doesn't stop. >All well and good except that the enforcement could be dangerous to >the officer's health. Especially in IL. I have seen drivers SPEED UP and LAY ON THE HORN just to watch pedestrians in a crosswalk scatter. >Furthermore, if you're standing on the sidewalk, not in the crosswalk, >how am I supposed to know you want to cross the street? Am I standing still or walking? In which direction am I walking? Is one of my feet poised in mid-air, about to land on the asphalt? If you can't tell when a pedestrian is about to cross the street, you need to turn in your driver's license TODAY. SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. > Especially in IL. I have seen drivers SPEED UP and LAY ON THE HORN > just to watch pedestrians in a crosswalk scatter. And that includes the cops! :) > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25707777/ > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > All well and good except that the enforcement could be dangerous to > the officer's health. I would like you to stop typing and put your hands on your key board. Look straight ahead. Now raise your hands over your head and shows us your empty palms. Continue to look straight ahead. Spread your legs and lean over and place your head on your keyboard. Hands still in the air. Give us your name, address, and license number, and keys - NOW! > Yeah the law says you have to stop, but, not when it means doing so > could cause an accident. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > slammed in the rear and wind up in the hospital. All because the law > says I have to stop? Read the damn law officer. Per Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS: >I like this idea and wish they'd hit these deadly drivers with a $1000 >fine but i do see one problem. Stupid kids with no intention of crossing >the street are gonna start stepping into the crosswalk just to force >people to stop and that will cause jams. That was the law when I lived in Waikiki a long time ago. People really did stop if you stepped off the curb onto a crosswalk. The joker was, that if you did it thoughtlessly and somebody had to slam on their brakes; they'd stop - but chances were pretty good that they'd also get out of the car and slap you around a little - just to get the message across. Seemed to me like a reasonable balance of power. SignaturePeteCresswell > CHICAGO - So why did Officer Grace Delgado try to cross the road? To > remind motorists that they must stop whenever someone steps off the curb > into a crosswalk. > In an unusual undercover operation, Delgado posed as a pedestrian on a > busy street while fellow officers waited for drivers to barrel past her > in violation of a law that requires them yield at crosswalks, even if > there is no stop sign. Oh man... I gotta go back to the neighborhood I used to live in and use the crosswalks in front of the cops driving down the street. The cops *NEVER* stopped for peds. They would actually use the wheelchair access of the crosswalk through the median to do U-turns. Just another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do revenue grab by the government's thugs. >Oh man... I gotta go back to the neighborhood I used to live in and use >the crosswalks in front of the cops driving down the street. The cops [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Just another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do revenue grab by the government's >thugs. You should videotape them doing that and send the tape to the local TV stations. Chicago media love busting on corrupt Chicago cops. :) SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. > Oh man... I gotta go back to the neighborhood I used to live in and > use the crosswalks in front of the cops driving down the street. The > cops *NEVER* stopped for peds. They would actually use the wheelchair > access of the crosswalk through the median to do U-turns. And if questioned, they say they were responding to an emergency. >> Oh man... I gotta go back to the neighborhood I used to live in and >> use the crosswalks in front of the cops driving down the street. The >> cops *NEVER* stopped for peds. They would actually use the wheelchair >> access of the crosswalk through the median to do U-turns. > > And if questioned, they say they were responding to an emergency. what emergency, the running out of donuts emergency ? shooting the f.cking pig or running over and killing the pile of sh.t cop will stop that nonsense |
Reply to this Message |
 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.