" were you trying to out run me?" " if i was trying to out run you, you would NOT have caught me!!" NO laughs
Confessions of a Traffic Cop
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Government needs money and this is what you get when you have budget problems.
So you see this as a legitimate funding method...OK. So you have no problem with the police putting money into their own pockets under the color of law?
Quote:
These muggers with badge also respond to 911 calls, Amber alerts, stopping drunk drivers, accidents, etc,
The police that respond to these things aren't exactly mugging anyone are they?
It's the difference of protecting one's rights (what police are supposed to do) vs. taking them away (via "revenue generation").
FWIW, I've only had 2 tickets in my entire life. One for going through a stop sign late at night on an unlit, deserted road with a partially covered sign and a cop "just happened" to be sitting down the cross road when I did.
He probably sat there every night.
The other was in Utah on a back road in the desert, again hardly any traffic, with a cop coming over a hill and the sun in my eyes.
There was no danger to anyone at either time.
Government needs money and this is what you get when you have budget problems.
So you see this as a legitimate funding method...OK. So you have no problem with the police putting money into their own pockets under the color of law?
Quote:
These muggers with badge also respond to 911 calls, Amber alerts, stopping drunk drivers, accidents, etc,
The police that respond to these things aren't exactly mugging anyone are they?
It's the difference of protecting one's rights (what police are supposed to do) vs. taking them away (via "revenue generation").
FWIW, I've only had 2 tickets in my entire life. One for going through a stop sign late at night on an unlit, deserted road with a partially covered sign and a cop "just happened" to be sitting down the cross road when I did.
He probably sat there every night.
The other was in Utah on a back road in the desert, again hardly any traffic, with a cop coming over a hill and the sun in my eyes.
There was no danger to anyone at either time.
Cops are real tough on speeding around here.
It doesn't matter if it's rush hour or 4 in the morning, if you are going over 5 above the speed limit, you will get pulled over AND TICKETED.
they don't give warnings here anymore.
It doesn't matter if it's rush hour or 4 in the morning, if you are going over 5 above the speed limit, you will get pulled over AND TICKETED.
they don't give warnings here anymore.
Everybody wants their work day to go smoothly. So give the powers that be their due and get on with your dance. If I see an oncoming emergency vehicle I pull over. Especially when I'm driving for work. I am in and out of fire houses on a weekly basis. I'm driving all over. Its respect for their work, for the territory they preside over, to not drive like an idiot. I had a job that put me on I 90 at 3 am. 70 highway miles one way. The guy I worked with told me that you could do 80, just pull into the center lane when approached by a fast moving car. It will be the Stateies. Sure 'nuff, going home , I was doing 85 in the left lane. and a half mile back are headlights coming up fast. The road is empty. I went right and a cop blew by doing 100. One morning, I made it home in 57 minutes.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So you see this as a legitimate funding method...OK. So you have no problem with the police putting money into their own pockets under the color of law?
I merely point out what a natural consequence of reducing tax revenue in local / state government. Nothing more, nothing less. You did the same to justify the existence of off shore tax shelter, fair game?
Quote:
It's the difference of protecting one's rights (what police are supposed to do) vs. taking them away (via "revenue generation").
FWIW, I've only had 2 tickets in my entire life. One for going through a stop sign late at night on an unlit, deserted road with a partially covered sign and a cop "just happened" to be sitting down the cross road when I did.
He probably sat there every night.
The other was in Utah on a back road in the desert, again hardly any traffic, with a cop coming over a hill and the sun in my eyes.
There was no danger to anyone at either time.
There was no danger to anyone in 99% of traffic violations be it not stopping at a stop sign, running red light, unsafe lane change, etc. And 99% of the time of these action aren't being ticketed either. However if there is no enforcement no one will stop at the stop signs and red lights, and the rates of danger would go up.
So, they are protecting someone's right (to drive safely) along the way. If you do not like the ticketing you can thank the politicians for hijacking it, by voting them out and replace the revenue with more tax dollar, or reduce expense with fewer officers (and potential of increase in crime).
So you see this as a legitimate funding method...OK. So you have no problem with the police putting money into their own pockets under the color of law?
I merely point out what a natural consequence of reducing tax revenue in local / state government. Nothing more, nothing less. You did the same to justify the existence of off shore tax shelter, fair game?
Quote:
It's the difference of protecting one's rights (what police are supposed to do) vs. taking them away (via "revenue generation").
FWIW, I've only had 2 tickets in my entire life. One for going through a stop sign late at night on an unlit, deserted road with a partially covered sign and a cop "just happened" to be sitting down the cross road when I did.
He probably sat there every night.
The other was in Utah on a back road in the desert, again hardly any traffic, with a cop coming over a hill and the sun in my eyes.
There was no danger to anyone at either time.
There was no danger to anyone in 99% of traffic violations be it not stopping at a stop sign, running red light, unsafe lane change, etc. And 99% of the time of these action aren't being ticketed either. However if there is no enforcement no one will stop at the stop signs and red lights, and the rates of danger would go up.
So, they are protecting someone's right (to drive safely) along the way. If you do not like the ticketing you can thank the politicians for hijacking it, by voting them out and replace the revenue with more tax dollar, or reduce expense with fewer officers (and potential of increase in crime).
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
Quote:
However if there is no enforcement no one will stop at the stop signs and red lights, and the rates of danger would go up.
Not stopping at signs and lights is very different than confiscating people's money for violating an arbitrary speed limit on a sign. Intersections are inherently dangerous as they are designed for traffic to cross paths. Failure to yield appropriately therefore creates an inherent danger to vehicle occupants.
However if there is no enforcement no one will stop at the stop signs and red lights, and the rates of danger would go up.
Not stopping at signs and lights is very different than confiscating people's money for violating an arbitrary speed limit on a sign. Intersections are inherently dangerous as they are designed for traffic to cross paths. Failure to yield appropriately therefore creates an inherent danger to vehicle occupants.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
What incentive do they have to make it easy for people not to pay their fine?
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
What incentive do they have to make it easy for people not to pay their fine?
I think they can get around it because it's not a criminal offense it's civil.
IIRC, your rights are different for civil matters as opposed to civil matters.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
IIRC, your rights are different for civil matters as opposed to civil matters.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
As for as the Seatbelt issue, HOW ON EARTH are motorcyclists exempt? in a car, you are surrounded by 2 tons of metal and a dozen air bags, yet you still HAVE to wear a seatbelt. A motorcyclist has nothing!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
As for as the Seatbelt issue, HOW ON EARTH are motorcyclists exempt? in a car, you are surrounded by 2 tons of metal and a dozen air bags, yet you still HAVE to wear a seatbelt. A motorcyclist has nothing!
^^Exactly
As for as the Seatbelt issue, HOW ON EARTH are motorcyclists exempt? in a car, you are surrounded by 2 tons of metal and a dozen air bags, yet you still HAVE to wear a seatbelt. A motorcyclist has nothing!
^^Exactly
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
However if there is no enforcement no one will stop at the stop signs and red lights, and the rates of danger would go up.
Not stopping at signs and lights is very different than confiscating people's money for violating an arbitrary speed limit on a sign. Intersections are inherently dangerous as they are designed for traffic to cross paths. Failure to yield appropriately therefore creates an inherent danger to vehicle occupants.
I would still stop at stop signs. Why? It's safe and it's common sense. Would I roll them more often? Yeah probably. But I would always look both ways, that's only sensible.
Quote:
However if there is no enforcement no one will stop at the stop signs and red lights, and the rates of danger would go up.
Not stopping at signs and lights is very different than confiscating people's money for violating an arbitrary speed limit on a sign. Intersections are inherently dangerous as they are designed for traffic to cross paths. Failure to yield appropriately therefore creates an inherent danger to vehicle occupants.
I would still stop at stop signs. Why? It's safe and it's common sense. Would I roll them more often? Yeah probably. But I would always look both ways, that's only sensible.
Originally Posted By: Darren270
2. He joked that they would sometimes do this on purpose (drive slow) and watch everyone get behind him and never pass. Oh and he added that you should feel free to pass...you're not going to get pulled over.
Um, no.
I've been watching the Florida highway patrol on the Turnpike. They hold up traffic by driving 0 to 3 MPH under the limit. Then when someone passes, they get pulled over instantly.
Happens every stinking day here.
2. He joked that they would sometimes do this on purpose (drive slow) and watch everyone get behind him and never pass. Oh and he added that you should feel free to pass...you're not going to get pulled over.
Um, no.
I've been watching the Florida highway patrol on the Turnpike. They hold up traffic by driving 0 to 3 MPH under the limit. Then when someone passes, they get pulled over instantly.
Happens every stinking day here.
I pass them all the time, even at 5 or so mph OVER the speed limit. This assumes I can get around all the others who are shaking in their boots about passing a cop. I have never been pulled over for doing it.
Let's see. How does a speed "trap" improve safety? Everybody on the road who sees the cop slams on the brakes and many change lanes suddenly and abruptly. On 70 mph roads they often slow to BELOW the speed limit which then causes a chain reaction behind the first group and slows down an entire stretch of highway.
I have felt for a long time that they need to drive around in unmarked cars and try stopping people for doing the stuff that REALLY promotes accidents. These things would include, failure to follow lane discipline (poking along in the left lane without passing), extreme tailgating, failure to attain adequate speed on an entrance ramp to merge smoothly into traffic, passing in the right lane while approaching an entrance ramp with a line of slow traffic entering the highway, driving for miles with the turn signal on, and driving a vehicle with a host of obvious mechanical problems that make it unsafe for any public roadway. This is just a partial list. But, I guess it's much easier to just spend a few thousand on speed detection equipment and sit on the side of the road waiting to collect some money. There is a whole industry built up around speeding tickets so we have jobs to protect! Right?
Let's see. How does a speed "trap" improve safety? Everybody on the road who sees the cop slams on the brakes and many change lanes suddenly and abruptly. On 70 mph roads they often slow to BELOW the speed limit which then causes a chain reaction behind the first group and slows down an entire stretch of highway.
I have felt for a long time that they need to drive around in unmarked cars and try stopping people for doing the stuff that REALLY promotes accidents. These things would include, failure to follow lane discipline (poking along in the left lane without passing), extreme tailgating, failure to attain adequate speed on an entrance ramp to merge smoothly into traffic, passing in the right lane while approaching an entrance ramp with a line of slow traffic entering the highway, driving for miles with the turn signal on, and driving a vehicle with a host of obvious mechanical problems that make it unsafe for any public roadway. This is just a partial list. But, I guess it's much easier to just spend a few thousand on speed detection equipment and sit on the side of the road waiting to collect some money. There is a whole industry built up around speeding tickets so we have jobs to protect! Right?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
The entire traffic court scam could be brought to a standstill...everyone fighting a ticket should demand a full jury trial.
The complain I have with ticket in Fremont, CA is that they don't have enough court time for all the people wanting to appeal. They only have 40 opening on a 1st come 1st serve basis and everyday there're 200 people waiting in line to appeal, many with justification (i.e. red light cam picking the wrong license plate off the wrong car). This IMO violate the right of citizen to a fair trial by putting an unreasonable barrier. I'm sure a lot of the people just want to fight the ticket by wearing out the court / DA to have them drop the ticket, but they should factor that in when they increase the amount of tickets issued.
The entire traffic court scam could be brought to a standstill...everyone fighting a ticket should demand a full jury trial.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The entire traffic court scam could be brought to a standstill...everyone fighting a ticket should demand a full jury trial.
When I got hauled in for jury duty I was hoping for a cool case like something out of "Law and Order".
Nope, it was a half a dozen OUIs and a guy who "Molested a lobster trap." Oh really?
These weren't your average OUIs, either, it was all smug guys who didn't just plead guilty and who thought for whatever reason a jury would give them a better outcome.
But they were already off on the wrong foot by boring me as a juror. If an alleged speeder wasted my time by hauling me in there against my will he'd be on a pretty short leash as well.
The entire traffic court scam could be brought to a standstill...everyone fighting a ticket should demand a full jury trial.
When I got hauled in for jury duty I was hoping for a cool case like something out of "Law and Order".
Nope, it was a half a dozen OUIs and a guy who "Molested a lobster trap." Oh really?
These weren't your average OUIs, either, it was all smug guys who didn't just plead guilty and who thought for whatever reason a jury would give them a better outcome.
But they were already off on the wrong foot by boring me as a juror. If an alleged speeder wasted my time by hauling me in there against my will he'd be on a pretty short leash as well.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Darren270
2. He joked that they would sometimes do this on purpose (drive slow) and watch everyone get behind him and never pass. Oh and he added that you should feel free to pass...you're not going to get pulled over.
Um, no.
I've been watching the Florida highway patrol on the Turnpike. They hold up traffic by driving 0 to 3 MPH under the limit. Then when someone passes, they get pulled over instantly.
Happens every stinking day here.
Um, no. They're probably getting pulled over for something else. You can't get ticketed just for passing a police cruiser thats going slower than the posted limit. What traffic law would you be breaking if you did? Either that, or you have some seriously crooked cops in your city.
Originally Posted By: Darren270
2. He joked that they would sometimes do this on purpose (drive slow) and watch everyone get behind him and never pass. Oh and he added that you should feel free to pass...you're not going to get pulled over.
Um, no.
I've been watching the Florida highway patrol on the Turnpike. They hold up traffic by driving 0 to 3 MPH under the limit. Then when someone passes, they get pulled over instantly.
Happens every stinking day here.
Um, no. They're probably getting pulled over for something else. You can't get ticketed just for passing a police cruiser thats going slower than the posted limit. What traffic law would you be breaking if you did? Either that, or you have some seriously crooked cops in your city.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
As for as the Seatbelt issue, HOW ON EARTH are motorcyclists exempt? in a car, you are surrounded by 2 tons of metal and a dozen air bags, yet you still HAVE to wear a seatbelt. A motorcyclist has nothing!
^^Exactly
+1 North Americans (especially the U.S.) have mandated requirements imposed by the Nanny state (presumably for our own good) telling us what Cars we are allowed to drive.
These requirements cost $$$ on the new cost of a new car + $$ in future maintenance.
Yet we are still FREE to buy a Crutch rocket!
I'm I alone seeing a double standard here?
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
As for as the Seatbelt issue, HOW ON EARTH are motorcyclists exempt? in a car, you are surrounded by 2 tons of metal and a dozen air bags, yet you still HAVE to wear a seatbelt. A motorcyclist has nothing!
^^Exactly
+1 North Americans (especially the U.S.) have mandated requirements imposed by the Nanny state (presumably for our own good) telling us what Cars we are allowed to drive.
These requirements cost $$$ on the new cost of a new car + $$ in future maintenance.
Yet we are still FREE to buy a Crutch rocket!
I'm I alone seeing a double standard here?
Its the corrupt insurance companies. The insurance lobby gets what it wants, and they paid a lot of money to buy the laws we got.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
When I got hauled in for jury duty I was hoping for a cool case like something out of "Law and Order".
Nope, it was a half a dozen OUIs and a guy who "Molested a lobster trap." Oh really?
I'm curious... Wait, having lived in Maine... No, I don't want to know!
When I got hauled in for jury duty I was hoping for a cool case like something out of "Law and Order".
Nope, it was a half a dozen OUIs and a guy who "Molested a lobster trap." Oh really?
I'm curious... Wait, having lived in Maine... No, I don't want to know!
- Status
Similar threads
