 |
|
1
|
|
Oh please, get off the moral high horse and admit you live like a normal human being. Don't speed....my @$$
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
Do actually know a cop? |
Not personally. I don't see how that restricts me from commenting upon my observations.
quote:
One trooper explained to me that many of the troopers are *******s because they go through as tough or tougher training than the military and after all the training and time spent learning, they are put on traffic duty. |
I've got an idea. Don't be a state trooper if you can't handle it.
quote:
The official quotas that you speak of do not exist. They do have quotas for what they call contacts. They must come into contact with the public a certain amount of time to show that arent pulled over somewhere eating or sleeping. |
I can understand that. However, that would not justify pulling over someone either. Most people don't have time to fill time quotas.
quote:
A law was passed that forbide any city from getting more than IIRC 5% from court fees and tickets. |
Well, either we don't have such a law here (definitely not rural) or, judging by the amounts from a few hours of observation, the city is spending obscene, obscene amount of money per hour if these numbers are to be multiplied by 20.
quote:
Two years later the town still hadnt complied so the State Police moved in and city police was barred by law from issuing tickets on the state highway through town. |
They should have gotten a ticket. 
quote:
I have been pulled over many times for speeding and have only gotten two tickets in my entire life. You know why? Because i dont start *****ing or explaining as soon as the guy walks up to me. I know I was speeding, he knows i was speeding. I then get off with a warning. Mostly verbal. I have been told a cop knows if he will be writing a ticket within the first minute of the conversation with the motorist. Most of you talk your way into a ticket with your attitude. Most of the time it's not a matter of your car going to fast but your mounth.  |
Well, thanks for the ranting lecture, but I have never gotten a ticket. I was pulled over once for not turning my lights on around dusk. I'll forgive you for assuming so much about me because we're not personally acquainted, but I'm quite capable of being polite, even when suffering abuse. I was in the Army, after all. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I fail to see, however, how the speed limit laws are in any way wrong. It is unjust enforcement I don't like, not the laws themselves. |
Laws should be limited to restricting actions which are injurious to the rights of others. While something such as, say, driving while intoxicated inherently puts the lives of other drivers in danger, speeding does not necessarily do that. Most speed limits that I live around are not indicative of the actual danger posed by the street's environment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 1
Ok, saying "you should get a ticket...because you broke the law!!!" even if its a stupid law, is a horrible argument. That's like making chewing gum illegal, then when everyone is arrested or fined, you saying "well they deserved it, they knew it was illegal!" Anyone see a hole in this logic? |
aha, yet another conservative getting ready to understand the Libertarian philosophy. Funny, one of the reason I became a Libertarian was because of the inequities of traffic tickets, and more so because of mandatory insurance laws....
However, after getting a little older and wiser I realized:
(I'm only 25, but........ :P )
1. Be nice to the cops. It's useless to fight. The more you fight the more they get off on writing you a ticket.
If you've ver worked at McDonalds, you'll have come into contact with people who you wish you could fine $200. Well cops get to do just that to not very nice people .
2. There are far larger injustices than your traffic ticket, in fact, in a couple of years, after figuring out how to avoid them, you will ifnd they really aren't that big of a deal.
I speed all the time, never get caught, since my day my rage got the best of me........ (which happened to be the day I sent in my $182 check for a traffic ticket)
quote:
The official quotas that you speak of do not exist. They do have quotas for what they call contacts. They must come into contact with the public a certain amount of time to show that arent pulled over somewhere eating or sleeping. |
They most certainly do for the Washington State PAtrol, I remember reading the Union grievences. Also, My home city tried, but it was shot down. I don't think my city was the only oone to try to implement a quota system. Luckily for the people and the police it failed, but I know there are far more conservative citites than mine.
Last edited by NeOmega on 23-10-2002 at 01:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Yes... intoxicated driving is a bigger risk to others than speeding... but speeding does indeed bring a risk to others. |
I don't know about where you live, but where I live, most 35's could easily be 55's without posing a significant danger to anyone.
quote:
So is there a magic formula to use on what percentage of risk should be allowed? |
You're right. It's a difficult question. I'm not prepared to throw up my hands and que sera, sera, why not let the govt make things against the law that shouldn't be?
quote:
Somebody drinking and not driving can cause risk to others (ask a bunch of battered wives)... |
Not being to restrain yourself from beating your wife while drunk is a character flaw, and is not inherent to drinking. Not being able to drive well, is.
quote:
so should drinking be outlawed as well... |
No, for reasons above. It is completely for possible for every person to drink without injuring others. Driving is a physical skill much more easily toyed with than being a person who doesn't beat others.
quote:
Just driving a car brings risk to others... intentional or not, you make a mistake, and you can kill somebody... so should anybody be allowed to drive... |
I believe that's why you have to pass tests to obtain a driver's license.
quote:
It's not so black and white. |
Then it shouldn't be the law. Because the laws are black and white, as they must be in a just country.
quote:
While we may agree or disagree on whether speed limits justified, they are still the law... and if you want to speed, be ready to get pulled over. |
You're right. And I have no desire to throw my money away on the government or its workers, and that's why I obey traffic laws, and have never gotten a ticket. That doesn't mean I cannot see the injustice of bad laws and fight against them and other more serious problems of justice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Laws should be limited to restricting actions which are injurious to the rights of others. While something such as, say, driving while intoxicated inherently puts the lives of other drivers in danger, speeding does not necessarily do that. Most speed limits that I live around are not indicative of the actual danger posed by the street's environment. |
So long as you are on your property, that's one thing. But when you drive on a street or highway, you are on government property, technically, and they have a right to post the rules they wish.
Speed limits are designed for public safety. You do not have a right to jeopardize the safety of others through being needlessly reckless, and excessive speed is indeed reckless. There is therefore nothing immoral about such limits, in the same vein there are laws establishing safe occupancy rates for rooms/elevators/vehicles/etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
So is there a magic formula to use on what percentage of risk should be allowed? Somebody drinking and not driving can cause risk to others (ask a bunch of battered wives)... so should drinking be outlawed as well... Just driving a car brings risk to others... intentional or not, you make a mistake, and you can kill somebody... so should anybody be allowed to drive...
|
O.K. Here in WA, the law says .08 BAL, which I think is bull pushed by the breathalyzer companies.....
(if you don't think they are a big business, Know it is WA state law now with DUI convictions you have to get a breathalyzer/ignition device on your car.
I think we should ditch breathalyzers and go with video camera and field sobriety testing. A person who can't walk straight shouldn't be driving. A person who can't drive straigth shouldn't be driving. A person going twice the speed limit is breaking the safety limitations of the road, and should not be driving.
A person going 120 mph down a 65 mph highway between Vancouver, WA. and Seattle WA. should get pulled over, if the police believe it is a safety hazard enough to warrnet patrolling that stretch of highway at 3 A.M. on a Sunday morning.
The Belgian said you automatically get a ticket in his country. I wish it were that way here. That way, no crying cheerleaders get out of it, no people who show up to court in their military uniform get out of it, everybody falls under the same law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I don't know about where you live, but where I live, most 35's could easily be 55's without posing a significant danger to anyone.
|
Maybe not significant, but the danger still exists... what percentage is exceptable?
quote:
You're right. It's a difficult question. I'm not prepared to throw up my hands and que sera, sera, why not let the govt make things against the law that shouldn't be?
|
There has to be "some" limit... and who is going to make them? If you don't agree with what they are, fight the government.
quote:
Not being to restrain yourself from beating your wife while drunk is a character flaw, and is not inherent to drinking.
|
Some doctors might disagree with you on this one... there are some people that are really great people, but who should never have a drink in their life.
quote:
No, for reasons above. It is completely for possible for every person to drink without injuring others.
|
It is also possible that somebody that has been drinking can drive without injuring others as well... again, a matter of degrees...
quote:
I believe that's why you have to pass tests to obtain a driver's license.
|
Even the best and safest driver can make a mistake and kill somebody. Being able to pass a test doesn't mean that you will never have an accident... just look at the Highway fatality figures...
quote:
That doesn't mean I cannot see the injustice of bad laws and fight against them and other more serious problems of justice. |
That is your right as a citizen... all power to you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So long as you are on your property, that's one thing. But when you drive on a street or highway, you are on government property, technically, and they have a right to post the rules they wish. |
The government, as the exclusive holder of the right of force, has a much more sacred charge than any private party. For instance, I can discriminate about who comes into my house, I can decide who I want to associate with, however bigoted or wrong my opinions are. The government, as a being which must be dealt with when one lives in a country, does not, nor should it, have that power. I really don't mean to start another discussion, but I would like to point out that this is the same argument I use when defending my position that gays be allowed to marry. Any individual, organization, or church has every right to discriminate as they see fit. The government does not.
I also happen to believe that roads should all be private, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
Suffice it to say, your argument is flawed in that the government can't just "do whatever it wants" with its "property" as it can legitmately be argued (with the many examples of the fradulent use of emminent domain and other seizures of property by government agencies) that no property rights exist in this country, and therefore all property is government property, and just because it can "do whatever it wants," it shouldn't.
quote:
Speed limits are designed for public safety. You do not have a right to jeopardize the safety of others through being needlessly reckless, and excessive speed is indeed reckless. |
As I implied before, I don't believe in most zones that driving higher than the posted limit is reckless.
quote:
There is therefore nothing immoral about such limits, in the same vein there are laws establishing safe occupancy rates for rooms/elevators/vehicles/etc. |
Umm... that's another topic of goverment regulation that we don't have to get into to discuss this topic. Let's just say, I don't agree with such things and therefore its ineffective to use them in a discussion with me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
The government, as the exclusive holder of the right of force, has a much more sacred charge than any private party. For instance, I can discriminate about who comes into my house, I can decide who I want to associate with, however bigoted or wrong my opinions are. The government, as a being which must be dealt with when one lives in a country, does not, nor should it, have that power. I really don't mean to start another discussion, but I would like to point out that this is the same argument I use when defending my position that gays be allowed to marry. Any individual, organization, or church has every right to discriminate as they see fit. The government does not.
I also happen to believe that roads should all be private, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
Suffice it to say, your argument is flawed in that the government can't just "do whatever it wants" with its "property" as it can legitmately be argued (with the many examples of the fradulent use of emminent domain and other seizures of property by government agencies) that no property rights exist in this country, and therefore all property is government property, and just because it can "do whatever it wants," it shouldn't.
|
I'm sorry, these paragraphs are extremely muddled, but all I meant to say was that the government can't do whatever it wants because we have all to deal with the government, whether we want to or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:23
|
|
I have a few friends that can be legally drunk but still have better reflexes than a lot of older drivers. Should we outlaw older drivers? Some people can be way under the legal limit and still be a danger. It sucks, but there has to be some limit. Such is the case with speed limits, some people can handle the faster speeds and some can't. Heck, in front of my house I'm glad the speed limit is 25 since kids play near the street all the time. So in a way, I'm glad the police have a little leeway when deciding to give out a ticket, (even though I get pissed when women can get off showing a little leg or wiggling a breast) There is always room for a little judgement when it comes to hard and fast, (and sometime ridiculous) limits. I'm always polite, and admit my guilt, and I've gotten off a few times. I still speed, (not as much as when I was younger) but am aware and take responsibility for any punishment if I get caught.
Rich
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2002 23:36
|