 |
| |
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It's funny you say that, but I think that showing a bit of leg got me off being nicked 
Yeah, I was wearing shorts |
Well... that's good for you, of course, but I can't agree that it should be possible. A policeman is not a judge (neither a court judge nor a miss beauty queen judge). A policeman is only there to enforce the law. He cannot decide, in any circumstances, whether a punishment is just, or a warning is better, that's for a judge to decide. And, given the amount of speeding tickets those poor judges have to deal with, it's far easier to make a fixed, automatic system, where you get send a picture of the back of your car, together with how fast you were going and the price you have to pay.
BTW, it is in Belgium always possible to appeal, of course, but the initial fines are settlements, not criminal fines. If you appeal and lose, the fines will get a lot higher, up to 110,000 (some $105,000) euro for going 40 kph too fast in a school environment. Nobody in his right mind is going to try losing that in court, or he should have a very good case to make. And remember, a picture is evidence you don't talk out off, quite a bit different than the personal opinion of a traffic agent.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
We are staging the Loons right now because we don't care, we ain't gonna win. Right now are strategy is to show force, show a name on the ballot, let people know we exist, without corporate donations. For example, our Sheriff won 15% (400,000) of the vote in my county, but between you me and Apolyton, I would rather the democrat won, cuz this guy's loony. However, we also have another man on the back burner, a 17 year veteran of the South Central precinct in L.A.
Oh yeah, he is clean cut good looking too, but he knows what Libertarians are about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
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. |
This is irrelevant. Speeding laws in no way discriminate against a particular group of people, they apply to everyone. There is not violation of equal protection, which is constitutionally protected.
quote:
I also happen to believe that roads should all be private, but that's a whole 'nother thread. |
Which would be pretty disasterous.
quote:
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. |
That's not quite the same thing. While the seizure of private land is another issue, the land that is clearly already government property is obviously and rightly subject to the rule the government deems fit, so long as those laws don't violate constitutional rights. There is no violation of constitutional rights where speed limits are concerned.
quote:
As I implied before, I don't believe in most zones that driving higher than the posted limit is reckless.
|
And you're wrong, as excessive speed is a frequent cause in many accidents. By engaging in reckless speeding, you put others at risk, not just yourself. That's where speeding laws, IMO, obtain their legitimacy. You have every right to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, and it is entirely suitable to assert that excessive speed is reckless and therefor puts the safety of others at risk.
Just because drunk driving is riskier doesn't mean excessive speed is o.k.
quote:
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. |
Well, if you don't want to discuss why, that's your choice, but I think it just makes your views look nutty. Laws protecting public safety are perfectly legitimate within reason so long as they do not violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that doesn't give the government the power to regulate speed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
For the books, I wasn't putting anyone in danger, I felt safe at the speed of which I was going, and no one was in the left lane, on which I went in, to pass the person in front of me. I Accelerated to pass the dewd, so its not like I was going the constant 97, or whatever the officer claimed. (my speedometer only goes to 85 mind you, so I doubt the validity of his accusations)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
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? |
Umm, YEAH, if they can't drive.
quote:
Some people can be way under the legal limit and still be a danger. |
Well, I have to admit I am no expert about levels of intoxication... so, can I concede without admitting fault? I don't care enough to go inform myself right this second.
quote:
It sucks, but there has to be some limit. |
You know, being a believer in private ownership of roads, I shouldn't have engaged in this. For me, it is like arguing about what sort of national dress code should be enforced.
quote:
Heck, in front of my house I'm glad the speed limit is 25 since kids play near the street all the time. |
As far as residential streets are concerned, I think 25 is not too strict. I don't know about you, but I don't drive mostly on residential streets. In fact, since I live in an apartment in a complex, my "street" is a parking lot, so I could go for weeks without driving on a road with houses facing it.
quote:
So in a way, I'm glad the police have a little leeway when deciding to give out a ticket |
 Scary. I believe that an individual's rights must be strictly protected, therefore I cannot agree with you.
quote:
There is always room for a little judgement when it comes to hard and fast, (and sometime ridiculous) limits. |
If so, shouldn't be a law, like I said before, but we're obviously not going to get anywhere with that.
Maybe we should switch arguments (not that I want to), because I don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 1
For the books, I wasn't putting anyone in danger, I felt safe at the speed of which I was going, and no one was in the left lane, on which I went in, to pass the person in front of me. I Accelerated to pass the dewd, so its not like I was going the constant 97, or whatever the officer claimed. (my speedometer only goes to 85 mind you, so I doubt the validity of his accusations) |
I love it... his speedometer can't answer the question since it was pinned, so all he can do is doubt the cop 
YOU BROKE THE LAW! WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!
You might have "felt" safe at that speed, but that's all it was, YOUR OPINION... You're the one that wasn't paying attention to your OWN EXIT... so obviously you weren't in total control of your situation...
So stop your whining and pay the ticket... every post you make just proves why you got it in the first place 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
For another thing, I missed my exit cuz of 3 long @$$ 18 wheelers that blocked the right lane. I couldn't get to the right lane at all without passing the ppl in front of me. I then missed the exit, the highway ends in 2 more miles, so I have to get ready for the next exit very soon. I knew the next exit was in about a mile... A MILE, so I had to speed. I don't feel bad for speeding, trying to pass ppl to get off the highway, it was a short burst, and the cop was a *****. Case closed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
Ugh, everyone is so quick to convict me. Ironically I feel stupid for overestimating the level of reason people had one this forum. You basically speak to me as if you've NEVER EVER done anything wrong. The bible would typically be the LAST thing I'd ever want to quote, but this one is rather good. "Let he without sin cast the first stone"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
And no I could not slow down, people were behind me (obviously, its a highway) and if I slowed down, they would have to pass me on the right side, which is against the law AS WELL! So instead of making them break the law, I just did what anyone with a half a brain would have done, passed the person in front of me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And you're wrong, as excessive speed is a frequent cause in many accidents. |
I don't believe this is the case, unless coupled with recklessness. And the problem is that "excessive" doesn't usually equate "above the speed limit." I think the drivers in the fast lane usually mututally agree to speed between 10 and 20 mph above the limit, and we do just fine with it.
quote:
Well, if you don't want to discuss why, that's your choice, but I think it just makes your views look nutty. |
If you think I'm just nutty than we don't have much to talk about. I have a great deal of respect for you, Boris, and I think you'll agree that without mutual respect there can be not mature arguments. So do you really think that?
quote:
Laws protecting public safety are perfectly legitimate within reason so long as they do not violate the constitution. |
The example you were bringing up is something I consider a violation of property rights. I don't condone any laws that are meant to save us from ourselves.
And as to your statement that the Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from making speeding laws, which I accidentally erased, the Consitution enumerates positive powers to the goverments, and I don't believe it says anything about Congress having the authority to restrice the manner in which we travel. But this really isn't about the national government, is it? It's about the states. A right doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be a right, and I believe that human beings do have a right to travel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
Excuse you? I did what anyone would have done, and I sincerely don't appreciate the harsh 'holier than thou' criticism I've gotten. Not only that, but attempts to belittle me.... ?? What's up with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
97 in a 65 is pretty bad  It is possible the cop was a *****, but honestly, ya got caught. The better thing to do would have been to slow down, and further advise, stay in the right lane when you are nearing your exit, and slow down, go below the speed limit if you want, you are in the slow lane, people will pass you if they have to. It is very unsafe to miss your exit, so you should relax and take it easy in these stressful situations.
If you read some of my earlier posts, I have empathized with you, and agreed cops can make a speeding ticket stab harder. But realistically, he probably saw you driving a little eradically. If you want to try and fight the ticket, you can find a plethora of information on how to win your case.... in fact, the three wheeler to your side could be enough to get it thrown out, due to some problems with radar, but you'll have to be incredibly calm about it, and be prepared to have a judge, well, tell you how it is. Basically, you can't fight city hall.
And I speak from experience. I have a little bit of a past in these things, and it took a serious mistake involving speeding the police, and a felony arrest, before I realized how irrational I was being.
Go to sleep and have a better day tomorrow.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
I never belittled the cop. I was very respectful. I obiviously didn't post what I said to the cop, I posted what I felt. The cop disrespected me several times, I SHOULD have been an @$$, but I truely wasn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Yes it is, I'll just say this. To Boris and PH, I'm willing to assume that you haven't considered this matter very seriously, which is fine, you know, I understand that it certainly doesn't fit with most peoples' paradigms. I'd like to find some of the articles I've read about it and give you a chance to read what people who are more able reasoners than I have said about it, and maybe I'll start another thread, if you'd really be interested. Or, I'll just go back to bed.
 <---- tired extremely pregnant woman |
Sounds like another person who has eaten a bowl of Libertarian propoganda.....
Good, they are falling in line, soon, with the victory in 2008, and my death ray gun... mwahaha, MWahaha MWAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!
Theyz a gonna legalize in Nevada too, from what I here. Yay Nevada!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
Thank u Neo, I'm glad someone listens to reason
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I don't believe this is the case, unless coupled with recklessness. And the problem is that "excessive" doesn't usually equate "above the speed limit." I think the drivers in the fast lane usually mututally agree to speed between 10 and 20 mph above the limit, and we do just fine with it. |
Excessive can be in and of itself reckless. There comes a certain point where you will be travelling fast enough that you will not have the control over the vehicle needed to avoid an accident should something unexpected arise. Where it simply a matter of your own personal safety, that would be wone thing, but it is clearly not, as you share the road with others, and it is THEIR safety that matters most. While you make think you are capable of reasonably determining at what rate you may safely, and you may be, I don't think that's something to be entrusted to each individual to decide.
quote:
If you think I'm just nutty than we don't have much to talk about. I have a great deal of respect for you, Boris, and I think you'll agree that without mutual respect there can be not mature arguments. So do you really think that? |
I never said I thought you were nutty, I said that, without justification, your views come across as being nutty. That's not the same thing.
quote:
The example you were bringing up is something I consider a violation of property rights. I don't condone any laws that are meant to save us from ourselves. |
That's not how those laws I mentioned are meant. They are meant to save us from OTHERS. How could you NOT have laws that make it illegal to exceed the safe level of occupancy of a building or elevator? People are selfish, and they would cram into a place they wanted to go until it was a disaster. Should it be okay to have 16 people living in a studio apartment? Absolutely not. It is not only a health hazard from a disease standpoint, it's a safety hazard due to fire.
quote:
And as to your statement that the Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from making speeding laws, which I accidentally erased, the Consitution enumerates positive powers to the goverments, and I don't believe it says anything about Congress having the authority to restrice the manner in which we travel. But this really isn't about the national government, is it? It's about the states. A right doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be a right, and I believe that human beings do have a right to travel. |
By government, I was referring to all that make speed limits, from municipal to Federal (if the Federal does, I have no idea). As David Floyd and other libertarians have mentioned, a state can pass any law so long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. Nothing in the constitution prohibits speed limits.
Speed limits do not infringe on the right to travel, as they do not prohibit anyone from traveling. They protect the rights of travellers to drive down the highway in relative safety from recklessness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
Sounds like another person who has eaten a bowl of Libertarian propoganda..... |
Well, I don't go around sceaming "I'm a libertarian! I'm a libertarian!" like you do, but that doesn't mean I'm not one. And I'm not criticizing, by the way, it's probably a good idea, if that's your style.
quote:
Theyz a gonna legalize in Nevada too, from what I here. Yay Nevada! |
Welll, I like to hope so (it's very competitive, at best). Unfortunately there are also some very bad popular initiatives, like the "Protection" of Marriage and the local govt taking over the power company, etc...
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-10-2002 01:21
|