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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
In Utah, the cops use planes for surveilance, I have been directed
around them many times as they cirle over their target. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Jul 2003 18:46:02 GMT, ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:
prolonged slow flight close to the ground which includes repeated 180 degree turns, by a pilot who is distracted by the need to remain in a good viewing position for his observer, are an invitation to disaster. A plane crashed and killed its two occupants the other day while they were hunting coyotes. all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 07:00 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 |