A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Speed monitored by aircraft????



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 19th 03, 12:21 AM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Tell that to my mother. Best be wearing ear plugs when you do. My younger
brother was run down and nearly killed by someone doing over 80 in a 35

mph
zone.

That's not speeding, that's "reckless driving" or "reckles endangerment"
(generally 20MPH over the limit) in just about every state. Those cases
are extremely rare.

And arguing that one shouldn't do anything about a problem because *you*
think something else is "more serious" doesn't sit well with *me* either.


About on par with hiring a whole bunch of cops to prevent bank robberies??

Tom
--
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -
[...] However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing
them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
- Judge Kozinski, 9th Circuit, Dissenting


  #22  
Old July 19th 03, 12:46 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 02:34:51 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
In California, one could argue that the roadway markers constitute a
speed trap, as the aerial LEOs determine the speed of automobiles by
timing them between those marks.


I've seen the law you cite before, and agree with your interpretation. But
I'm curious if you know the rationale behind it.


No I don't. But I could guess.

You might consider addressing your question to the California
Department of Motor Vehicles:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40802.htm

What problem regarding the enforcement of speed limits is that law
trying to address?


My guess would be that the prohibition against speed traps, as defined
in the CVC, is the state's attempt to restrain municipal police
departments from abusing the system and fleecing the public.

You see, the CVC not only enables the local constabulary to cite
alleged offenders, it also protects the public from official abuse of
the legal system by them. Take this example:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42201_6.htm
"Refunds: Bail Deposits

42201.6. (a) A deposit of bail received with respect to an
infraction violation of this code, or any local ordinance adopted
pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, a violation
involving the standing or parking of a vehicle, shall be refunded
by the agency which issued the notice of violation or the court
within 30 days of a cancellation, dismissal or finding of not
guilty of the offense charged.

(b) Multiple or duplicate deposits of bail or parking penalty
shall be identified by the court or agency and refunded within 30
days of identification.

(c) Any amount to be refunded in accordance with subdivision (a)
or (b) shall accrue interest, at the rate specified in Section
3289 of the Civil Code, on and after the 60th day of a
cancellation, dismissal, or finding of not guilty or
identification of multiple or duplicate deposits, and shall be
refunded as soon as possible thereafter along with accrued
interest."


The above CVC section 42201.6 makes it unlawful to withhold bail
refunds beyond 30 days. The Vehicle code goes one step further in
protecting people from misuse of the power of the court:


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42202.htm
"Disobedience by Officials

42202. Failure, refusal, or neglect on the part of any judicial
or other officer or employee receiving or having custody of any
fine or forfeiture mentioned in this article either before or
after deposit in the respective fund to comply with the foregoing
provisions of this article is misconduct in office and ground for
removal therefrom."


So it would appear that CVC section 42202 grants people the power to
remove judicial offenders from office who violate CVC section 42201.6.
In spite of the above laws the local Superior Court publishes this
policy on their web site:


http://www.occourts.org/traffic/
"If the fine is suspended or if you are found not guilty, your
bail is refunded by mail within sixty days and is returned to the
depositor at the address listed on the case."


Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
public trust.


  #23  
Old July 19th 03, 02:41 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
public trust.


I'm sure they are. Still...

I must be slow today or something. What does prohibiting the use of marked
entry and exit points on the road and the use of a stopwatch have to do with
protecting the public of abuse? It's not like radar evidence is any more
immune to abuse than a time-over-distance measurement.

Pete


  #24  
Old July 19th 03, 02:59 AM
H. Adam Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Time over distance is an average; It's BETTER evidence.
IF
They didn't just speed for an instant while passing and getting clear of a
truck.
That's actually reasonable behavior.
They were averaging 90 in a 55 for 5 miles.
Nail 'em.

I am terrified when I drive to the airport.
H.
N502TB


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
public trust.


I'm sure they are. Still...

I must be slow today or something. What does prohibiting the use of

marked
entry and exit points on the road and the use of a stopwatch have to do

with
protecting the public of abuse? It's not like radar evidence is any more
immune to abuse than a time-over-distance measurement.

Pete




  #25  
Old July 19th 03, 03:28 AM
Peter Gottlieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Tell that to my mother. Best be wearing ear plugs when you do. My

younger
brother was run down and nearly killed by someone doing over 80 in a 35

mph
zone.

That's not speeding, that's "reckless driving" or "reckles endangerment"
(generally 20MPH over the limit) in just about every state. Those cases
are extremely rare.



Around here it is fairly common, especially on the highways. When I go 70
in a 55 zone most every car is blowing by me like I am standing still, and
honking as they do.


  #26  
Old July 19th 03, 03:31 AM
Legrande Harris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In Utah, the cops use planes for surveilance, I have been directed
around them many times as they cirle over their target.
  #27  
Old July 19th 03, 03:58 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:41:35 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
public trust.


I'm sure they are. Still...

I must be slow today or something. What does prohibiting the use of marked
entry and exit points on the road and the use of a stopwatch have to do with
protecting the public of abuse?


You missed my answer. I suggested you inquire at the DMV, and
provided you with a link.

It's not like radar evidence is any more
immune to abuse than a time-over-distance measurement.

Pete


My guess: The speed trap prohibition was probably enacted in response
to some specific practices that were occurring at that time.
  #28  
Old July 19th 03, 05:15 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
You missed my answer. I suggested you inquire at the DMV, and
provided you with a link.


I saw that. However, for the rest of the post, you *seemed* to be
postulating that the law was enacted in order to prevent abuse by law
enforcement agencies. Not being able to see how the law might do that, I
was interested in your "take" on the hypothesis you *appeared* to propose.

If that's not your hypothesis, I misunderstood. Sorry...I was just trying
to have you elaborate on what YOU were thinking, not what CA State was
thinking.

My guess: The speed trap prohibition was probably enacted in response
to some specific practices that were occurring at that time.


In other words, time-over-distance *isn't* any more likely to be abused,
it's just that either the cops haven't been caught abusing radar evidence,
or the state's decided that they need to allow *some* way to enforce speed
limits.

Personally, I think video-taped time-over-distance would be the most
reliable evidence of what's available. Still fakable, to be sure, but
harder to do than just lying about the stop-watch reading, or using the same
radar return for several randomly picked cars.

Pete


  #29  
Old July 19th 03, 05:17 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
...
Around here it is fairly common, especially on the highways. When I go 70
in a 55 zone most every car is blowing by me like I am standing still, and
honking as they do.


Where is "around here"? I've driven all over the country and never found
myself in an area where the median traffic speed was 30 mph over the speed
limit (I figure "blowing by me" must mean the other cars are at least as
much faster than you, as you are faster than the speed limit).

Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous of your claim. People drive crazy, but
I've never seen them drive *that* crazy, not in the US, not as a rule ("most
every car") rather than an exception.

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 December 2nd 04 08:00 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 May 1st 04 07:29 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.