Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Brent P on 15 Mar 2007 21:07 In article <1174006083.950295.20210(a)y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > On Mar 15, 4:28 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >> > In article <pLadnXG3mO_l3WnYnZ2dnUVZ_uygn...(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >> >>> The old... 'you shouldn't even talk about it on usenet' routine. Oh, >> >>> trust me, I've brought this sort of thing up to local office holders, >> >>> police departments, newspapers.... It's practically cut and paste from >> >>> the usenet posts! >> >> >> I'm sure you have. >> >> > Yet you accuse me of 'doing nothing'. >> >> Oh I'm sure that you've complained. >> >> But in essence, yes. You've already admitted that you can't take the pay >> cut required to do the public service which might give you a glimmer of >> a chance to affect a change. Complaining (and often as not to the wrong >> audience) is not doing something. > > Well, writing to representatives (state and national) is the common > way folks make their opinions known to those who represent them, > right? That, and monetarily supporting candidates that reflect their > views. Going to town council meetings, school board meetings, etc, > and speaking - is that "complaining" or "doing something"? Signing > petitions, circulating petitions, writing letters to the editor of > local rags stating a position - complaining, or doing something? Thanks Ed. What Steve was doing was the old 'not enough' routine. This is where someone asks if someone is doing X, and if he is, then the bar gets raised. Anyway that reminds me... I need to read up on a IL gun bill and send off my objections. There are several to go through, and the one I went through thus far isn't quite as bad as the summary makes it out to be. (the summary written by the legislators at that!) The summary makes it seem as if one can't drive with a gun in a vehicle within a 1000 feet of the property of public transportation. (ie train station) Closer reading of the actual law with changes looks more like driving within a 1000 feet of the trainstation with the gun on passenger seat or similiar accessible location. And there's about 8 more to look through.
From: k_flynn on 15 Mar 2007 22:26 On Mar 15, 5:18 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > >> One count one - it doesn't have to. > > > Of course it does. When you're asked for a cite that *specifies* that > > driving is a privilege, and you instead provide a cite that does > > nothing of the sort, it's generally regarded as evasive. Not only does > > the word "privilege" not appear at all in the cite you provided in > > response to the request for a statute cite that defined driving as a > > privilege; your cite never even provided *any* definition for driving. > > It simply states that a license is required to drive a motor vehicle. > > It's elsewhere in the statute - but I wasn't trying to make a legal > scholar out of you. Nice try. It's not in the statute you cited at all, not "elsewhere," not anywhere. You're evading. If you think I missed it, kindly point it out. *You* trying to make a legal scholar out of *me?* That's funny, since when you were asked for a specific cite you provided a non-responsive one and now try to blame others for your failure. > >> Most people understand that license suggest privilege just as they > >> understand that a right needs no license. > > > I doubt most people believe this misinterpretation. A privilege is a > > special grant bestowed by an authority there is an element of whim at > > play in it. A license, as I said, is an earned benefit. The applicant > > gets it with or without the whim of the state if he or she qualifies > > through the objective standards. There is a difference. > > An "earned benefit"? A license to practice law or medicine might be an > example of an "earned benefit", but a license to drive in most states > requires only a rudimentary test to determine an applicant's knowledge > of the rules of the road and a road test to determine a minimum > proficiency level. In any event, driver's licenses and any other > professional licenses can be suspended for cause because represent > privileges granted by the appropriate licensing authority. Haven't you > ever heard of a disbarred lawyer or a doctor who has had their medical > license revoked? Your right to do what you want ends where it starts to > effect others. Wow. I don't know how this flew right over your head, but everything you just wrote there confirms what I have been saying. To try to refute that a driver's license is an earned benefit, and not a bestowed state "privilege," you actually laid out my case for me. For you to say "a license to drive in most states requires only a rudimentary test to determine an applicant's knowledge of the rules of the road and a road test to determine a minimum" not only fails to undercut my position that it is, in fact, an earned benefit. But it makes my case because you are agreeing with me that getting the license is an earned activity on the part of the applicant, not the state. No matter that the level of proficiency to drive is much more rudimentary than that for a brain surgeon; the principle remains. Yes, those rights to practice medicine or to drive can be revoked for cause - for failing to maintain an adequate level of proficiency. Just like driving. Wow. Thank you. I hope you will re-read what you wrote and concede the point.
From: Brent P on 16 Mar 2007 09:38
In article <f8-dnYENa_WCTWTYnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Brent P wrote: > In article <mrKdnciV0tm3UGTYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> I told you that I stated the 'elements', just as you recommended. Light >>> timings, measurements, visibility of the signals, intersection layout. > >> Those aren't the elements. Those are the smoke screens commonly used to >> mask one's own culpability. The elements of a red light violation are >> was the light red and did you drive through it. Everything else is an >> argument for mitigation. You probably committed the violation - you just >> think you've got a good excuse. > > You don't have a clue do you? The intersection as it stands VIOLATES STATE > LAW. IL _LAW_ mandates that the MUTCD be followed. The intersection is of > nonstandard design, the signal faces for BOTH directions are visible, the > yellow signal is shorter than the minimum, etc and so forth. I crossed > the _STOP LINE_ on GREEN, but did not reach the intersection until red > because the yellow signal is so short and the distance between the two > points long. It is a right turn only curved approach to a straight road > and the stop line is well before the plane of the intersection. Seems cops like to hold the government to following the law when they get ticketed. This cop actually ran the red light, maybe the intersection was bad, maybe not, but he didn't rely on that, but relied on the other requirements of the LAW that the GOVERNMENT had to follow: ------------------ http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1654.asp http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/NEWS/70315047/1001/COMM08 <...> Dallas County Magistrate Misheal Waller ruled the civil infraction notices issued by the City of Clive to two drivers . one of who is a Waukee police officer . do not contain the defendants. address nor the time and place of a court appearance, in violation of Iowa Code. Waukee officer William Daggett represented himself in one of the cases and said he was the first to contest the $75 violation on those grounds. ..I happen to be a little more knowledgeable than the average citizen about this,. Daggett said. .Any attorney could have done the same thing.. <...> Daggett also contended that the Clive citation process conflicts with Iowa law that calls for criminal citations for red-light runners . not civil ones as Clive, Council Bluffs and Davenport issue . which was the basis of a January district court ruling against the City of Davenport in a similar case. Waller did not take that argument into consideration for today.s ruling because the Davenport ruling was .not yet published or not even fully disposed of the deciding court.. <...> --------------------------- |