Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: BTR1701 on 25 Feb 2007 17:35
In article <pan.2007.02.25.18.58.37.365667(a)hotpop.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:37:07 -0500, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article <12tu29fgut51q4d(a)corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Robert Bolton" <robertboltondrop(a)gci.net> wrote:
> >> I was given a ticket for running a red light by a Valencia California
> >> policeman. I did stop, but the guy said the law requires that you not
> >> move for 3 seconds.
> >
> > I've never heard of such a thing. A complete stop is all that is
> > required. Probably something the cop made up on the spot to justify his
> > stop.
>
> Always refreshing to see one of our federal LEO bros. give the benefit of
> a doubt to the local cop. Having been a police supervisor for nearly 21
> years I have indeed heard of such a thing. No reflection on Mr. Bolton, I
> suspect he may be trying to be entirely honest about this, but I have seen
> ticket respondents make similar claims about things allegedly told them by
> police officers at traffic stops. Sometimes the cop said exactly what's
> been claimed and other times there is lots gets lost in the retelling.
> Cruiser cameras and those small personal digital voice recorders (legal in
> my state) that record with single party consent have shown me that often
> times the conversations are more a misunderstanding than "something the
> cop made up on the spot to justify his stop". For example - a cop stopping
> an alleged violator issues a citation for failure to stop at a stop sign.
> The violator protests that they did slow down and look for traffic (oddly,
> out here it's often called a California stop) and only rolled through at
> the slowest possible speed. The cop offers a suggestion that to avoid
> future citations the violator might try remaining stopped for a full 3
> seconds before proceeding from a stop sign. In the mind of the violator
> this somehow translates to "the law requires you not to move for 3
> seconds". Not exactly as sinister as your presumption, but just as likely
> to have happened (and I've personally handled complaints against officers
> where it has happened that way).

Well, as long as we're telling personal stories and using them as proof
of generalities, would you give the same weight and credence to
incidents experienced by myself and other plainclothes officers (local,
state and federal) where we've been stopped and fed a line of nonsense
(like the mythic 3-second rule) only to have the officer backpedal like
crazy once he realizes driver has a badge, too?
From: Citizen Bob on 25 Feb 2007 17:57
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:40:18 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net>
wrote:

>Well, most states at least give lip service to the MUTCD, does it have
>any recommended speed limit guidelines in there? Obviously there will
>be some wording about engineering studies, etc. which one should then
>request.

The sole purpose of traffic enforcement is revenue enhancement.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? We want them to be
broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy
scouts you're up against. We're after power and we mean it."

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government
has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't
enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a
crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
laws."

"Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for
anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed
nor enforced or objectively interpreted and you create a nation of
law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system,
that's the game and once you understand it you'll be much easier to
deal with."

--Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"


--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson
From: BTR1701 on 25 Feb 2007 18:04
In article <pan.2007.02.25.18.40.59.95636(a)hotpop.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:12:28 -0500, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > Yep. In Washington DC it was recently reported that the accident rate
> > along one stretch of New York Avenue where a speed camera has been
> > operating has increased since the camera was installed, not decreased.
>
> Who reported it?

The Washington Post.

> When were the cameras installed?

No idea. I didn't copy down those details.

> Does a study exist that eliminates all other potential
> causes for a perceived increase in accidents?

No idea. But it would indeed be a helluva coincidence that the rise in
the accident rate just happened to coincide with the installation of the
speed camera without being attributable to the installation of that
speed camera and that it also happened *only* along the stretch of New
York Avenue where the camera happened to be. Common sense says otherwise.

And the paper tracked down the accident reports and interviewed various
people who had crashes along that stretch of road and apparently every
one of them claimed that the collisions occurred because the vehicle in
front of them suddenly slowed dramatically for no apparent reason.

> > The reason? Because all the commuters who drive the route daily know
> > about the camera and routinely hit their brakes as soon as they get to
> > that stretch of road. And the other drivers who don't know about the
> > camera are suddenly caught by surprise as traffic speed drops 20 MPH and
> > accidents ensue.
>
> Sounds long in the speculation arena a little iffy in the logic
> department? Using that reasoning any type of distraction that caused
> unexpected braking would be responsible for an uptick in the accident
> rate.

It's not a distraction. It's more akin to a road hazard that only some
of the drivers know about.

> The mere presence of a marked police cruiser or of approaching
> another pre-existing accident scene should also automatically result in an
> increased collision rate. Don't DC drivers look to see what's in front of
> them?

Not as a rule, no. They generally suck at all forms and techniques of
driving.

> It seems like something as simple as an advanced warning sign could
> reduce or eliminate the perceived increased danger caused by a speed
> camera if that's really the issue?

Or something as simple as removing the damned camera would work, too.

> > Another problem with the cameras (at least the way they are operated in
> > Washington DC) is that you don't get your ticket in the mail until about
> > a month after the violation occurs. Unlike being pulled over by an
> > actual cop, where the mitigating factors are fresh in your mind (there
> > are a few situations where speeding is legally justified), you now have
> > to think back over 30 days just to try and remember why you were on that
> > road in the first place.
>
> I wouldn't go as far as to say "legally justified".

I would. In Texas, the speed limit isn't even mandatory. It merely gives
rise to a rebuttable presumption that a driver who is exceeding the
posted limit is driving in an unsafe manner. If the driver can prove by
a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" (more than a
"preponderance of the evidence" but less than "beyond a reasonable
doubt"), that the speed at which they were clocked was not unsafe for
the given conditions, then he/she is entitled to an acquittal.

> There aren't any
> universal affirmative defenses to speeding that I've experienced, however
> I have seen folks successfully argue mitigating circumstances such as
> medical emergency or some other competing harms claim like fleeing a
> domestic violence situation.

Well, what you just gave are two examples of the general defense of
necessity, which would indeed be a universal affirmative defense to
violation of nearly any law, assuming the defendant has evidence to
support it.

> > Also, by delaying the delivery of the ticket for a month or more, the
> > state knows that the driver probably doesn't even realize there's a
> > camera there and if it's a route they travel regularly, they could
> > conceivably end up being ticketed 60 to 70 times before the first one
> > even shows up in the mailbox. This leads to massive revenue windfalls
> > for the government and at the same time can effectively bankrupt a
> > person when thousands of dollars in fines suddenly drop into their
> > mailbox all at once.
>
> So you are implying that aggressive speed enforcement does impact driver
> behaviors and force a slower legally compliant speed.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it outright. But the state purposely
delays notifying drivers of that very enforcement (and the consequent
safer behavior which would result) in order to maximize its revenue
stream. They don't want you to slow down immediately. Oh, no. They'd
much rather you keep speeding through that stretch of road for a while
so they can rack up the fines on you. If safety were the underlying
concern, they'd get that ticket out to you as quick as possible. But
safety isn't the real concern. It's revenue maximization.

> > Bottom line: the state will tolerate a lot but the minute you start to
> > threaten their revenue stream, they'll come down on you like the wrath
> > of god.
>
> Personally, I have a strong dislike for camera traffic enforcement. It's
> inherently unfair and does not give the drive who in a given instance is
> caught speeding or running a light even the opportunity to explain
> circumstances or make notes for a future defense in court. OTOH, any
> driver who actually gets 60 or 70 tickets before learning of the first one
> has an issue with following the traffic laws and loses much of the
> sympathy I might otherwise feel for them

That might be true if the speed limit isn't also artificially lowered
near the camera (and only near the camera) in order to nail people. New
York Avenue in DC is a major thoroughfare (six lanes, eventually turning
into the Baltimore-Washington Parkway). The speed limit along most of
its length is 45 MPH but for some reason, it drops to 35 right where the
camera happens to be. Now there's no school or hospital or tight curve
or anything that would make that stretch of road more dangerous and
therefore require a drop in speed and consequently, drivers neither
expect nor notice the reduction. Now I'm sure you can think of all sorts
of rationalizations for this but Occam's Razor and a healthy dose of
skepticism for just about anything the DC Government does leads to only
one inescapable conclusion: it's all about the $$$.

These speed cameras are generating millions in revenue for the city and
when a politician can raise revenue in those amounts without having to
raise taxes on the residents even one dime, you better believe they'll
do whatever is necessary to maximize it. For that reason it's also no
coincidence that almost all these cameras are placed on commuter routes
and not residential/business streets. They do that so that most of the
people who are ticketed are residents of Maryland or Virginia, not the
District. Maryland and Virginia residents can't vote out a DC politician
no matter how mad they get over these cameras so they are safe to prey
upon.

It's nothing but a commuter tax, pure and simple.
From: BTR1701 on 25 Feb 2007 18:05
In article <7anEh.3590$ya1.1823(a)news02.roc.ny>,
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote:

> Steve Furbish wrote:
> > at least acknowledge that some of the blame for the state's apparent
> > success at revenue gathering by means of traffic cams lies squarely on
> > the shoulders of those who choose to violate perfectly valid statutory
> > law.
>
> I've always wondered what would make a statutory law not perfectly
> valid.

Well, it's not valid if it violates the Constitution.

If the state passed a law saying that only white people are entitled to
lawyers, that statutory law would be void on its face.
From: BTR1701 on 25 Feb 2007 18:08
In article <45e1f758.229746109(a)news-server.houston.rr.com>,
spam(a)uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2007 11:36:11 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There have been instances (quoted here in r.a.d.) where authorities
> >changed the light timing to increase the number of citations issed.
>
> And people wonder why motorists despise cops.

Your statement has nothing to do with what Pirrero wrote. The people who
passed the laws installing the cameras were not cops. The people who set
the light timing were not cops and the people who sent out the tickets
were not cops.

When it comes to these cameras, cops have little to nothing to do with
them. That's the whole point: the cameras remove the cops from the
equation.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries