First Ticket in over 5 years - Dr. Ron, please!
10-27-2004, 07:08 PM
#61
Cottage Industry Sponsor
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
I have to say again, the officer was very friendly and professional. No personal issues here. He did not even give me the blanket "speed kills" statement, and did not tease me about being German, as an officer did about 7 years ago.
Generally, I have a very high respect for anyone who joins law enforcement. I have personally participated in training sessions for our local Police department, know the Police Captain personally, and think he's the best thing that could have happened to our town after a brutal murder that happened here two years ago.
I also do stick to the speed limits in town - because there are people, other cars, or property around that could suffer easily.
In my case, there was NOTHING around. Two lanes in each direction, and a grass center about four lanes wide. The street was dry, and there were no other cars in sight going into my direction. There was some oncoming traffic.
Next we have to look at the law: The signs there say 70mph. But how has this speed been determined? If it wasn't a freeway, was an engineering study done that determined what is safe for this type of road? If so, what criteria was used to determine what is safe?
86mph - if that's what I was driving (Do you notice that I never said I did go that fast, not even here? Could this be because I didn't?) - that is just a hint over the speed recommended as safe by the German government for the Autobahn (130km/h Richtgeschwindigkeit). I used to cruise at 100-110mph for hours without incident. I have never in my life caused an accident or done any significant damage to a car. So, that tells me something about how safe or unsafe it is to go 86mph.
And: If I collide head-on with someone who veers across the center, does it make a difference whether I go 70 or 86mph? Do I even have a chance for survival in a head-on crash at 70mph? No way! Not even a 928 body could withstand the forces of such an impact, and likely the passenger cell would collapse. If survivability in all cases was the criteria, we should NEVER go faster than about 40mph. But then again, how likely are exact head-on crashes? Most impacts are offset or at angles, significantly changing the parameters.
What really bothers me, though, is the focus of the CHP on speed only. There are tons of other violations that you see every day, that are dangerous, but nobody cares.
How many cars do we say with lights that don't work, are adjusted to blind oncoming traffic, or just light a small area in front of the car?
How often are you tailgated? I have NEVER heard of anyone getting a ticket for tailgating. In Germany you can lose your license, if you get caught (and sooner or later you will)! Earlier that day I had been tailgated for miles in heavy rain by a contractors truck, when I was under the speed limit. There was nowhere to go - cars in front and to the side of me going similar speeds. He eventually found a way to swerve around me and cut me off. He probably did not exceed the speed limit during ithat manoever, so was it less dangerous than going a little faster on a dry, empty road?? No tickets issued here, of course. Is it too hard to prove tailgating? Too much work to document and proof? Hmmm... German police has the tools to do it, including cameras on bridges, and unmarked patrol cars with video equipment.
How about cars with major accident damage or body parts missing? Bald or underinflated tires? Overloaded? Trucks with load not secured? I have seen many horrfic things here that CHP could not care less about. They SELECT enforcing the speed laws but not others, and I can only assume they do so because speeding tickets are a bigger revenue maker with less work (write the ticket, be done - if you issue a fix-it, you have to verify, and not get much of a fine).
I understand that CHP did not make the laws or speed limits, and don't blame them for the stupid ones. I also understand that Arnold needs money. But I don't understand how some safety relevant laws are enforced strictly, and others - that have been never proven to decrease accidents - are not.
Generally, I have a very high respect for anyone who joins law enforcement. I have personally participated in training sessions for our local Police department, know the Police Captain personally, and think he's the best thing that could have happened to our town after a brutal murder that happened here two years ago.
I also do stick to the speed limits in town - because there are people, other cars, or property around that could suffer easily.
In my case, there was NOTHING around. Two lanes in each direction, and a grass center about four lanes wide. The street was dry, and there were no other cars in sight going into my direction. There was some oncoming traffic.
Next we have to look at the law: The signs there say 70mph. But how has this speed been determined? If it wasn't a freeway, was an engineering study done that determined what is safe for this type of road? If so, what criteria was used to determine what is safe?
86mph - if that's what I was driving (Do you notice that I never said I did go that fast, not even here? Could this be because I didn't?) - that is just a hint over the speed recommended as safe by the German government for the Autobahn (130km/h Richtgeschwindigkeit). I used to cruise at 100-110mph for hours without incident. I have never in my life caused an accident or done any significant damage to a car. So, that tells me something about how safe or unsafe it is to go 86mph.
And: If I collide head-on with someone who veers across the center, does it make a difference whether I go 70 or 86mph? Do I even have a chance for survival in a head-on crash at 70mph? No way! Not even a 928 body could withstand the forces of such an impact, and likely the passenger cell would collapse. If survivability in all cases was the criteria, we should NEVER go faster than about 40mph. But then again, how likely are exact head-on crashes? Most impacts are offset or at angles, significantly changing the parameters.
What really bothers me, though, is the focus of the CHP on speed only. There are tons of other violations that you see every day, that are dangerous, but nobody cares.
How many cars do we say with lights that don't work, are adjusted to blind oncoming traffic, or just light a small area in front of the car?
How often are you tailgated? I have NEVER heard of anyone getting a ticket for tailgating. In Germany you can lose your license, if you get caught (and sooner or later you will)! Earlier that day I had been tailgated for miles in heavy rain by a contractors truck, when I was under the speed limit. There was nowhere to go - cars in front and to the side of me going similar speeds. He eventually found a way to swerve around me and cut me off. He probably did not exceed the speed limit during ithat manoever, so was it less dangerous than going a little faster on a dry, empty road?? No tickets issued here, of course. Is it too hard to prove tailgating? Too much work to document and proof? Hmmm... German police has the tools to do it, including cameras on bridges, and unmarked patrol cars with video equipment.
How about cars with major accident damage or body parts missing? Bald or underinflated tires? Overloaded? Trucks with load not secured? I have seen many horrfic things here that CHP could not care less about. They SELECT enforcing the speed laws but not others, and I can only assume they do so because speeding tickets are a bigger revenue maker with less work (write the ticket, be done - if you issue a fix-it, you have to verify, and not get much of a fine).
I understand that CHP did not make the laws or speed limits, and don't blame them for the stupid ones. I also understand that Arnold needs money. But I don't understand how some safety relevant laws are enforced strictly, and others - that have been never proven to decrease accidents - are not.
10-27-2004, 07:14 PM
#62
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Sheep or shark???
On the forest floor, there is competition for food. Some creatures who live there, steal the eggs and the young of other creatures who are destined to remain living there. Of course, in time, some creatures evolved to fly and had the option of bearing their young high in the trees, which gave them the advantage of escaping the creatures of the forest floor and allowed them to reproduce more easily. The risk of being born in the air was offset by the assurance of freedom from interference at least in the early stages of life.
A long time ago, some observant monkeys noticed that not all birds made it to adulthood. It was noticed that some birds, upon being born, were tossed out of the nest high in the trees by rival siblings competing for food. Of course the poor unfortunate baby birds fell to the ground to be gobbled up by the creatures of the forest floor. All of the baby birds that grew to adulthood ultimately had to leave the nest to gather their own food, for their parent birds could not live forever foraging for food for both themselves and their young.
When the time came for the young birds to fly, only those who could, survived because they were the ones who were mature enough and evolved enough to fly; the others fell to the ground and were gobbled up by the creatures that lived on the forest floor. But the ones that flew became the able, magnificent eagles, hawks and sparrows that inhabit the skies and lived to produce more of their kind. Despite the danger of placing their nests high in the trees to allow their young to escape being devoured by the creatures who inhabit the forest floor, and the fact that, as a result, not all baby birds survived the ordeal of maturing in the treetops, some birds did live to reproduce and thrive and managed to escape the certain threat to becoming extinct by remaining close to the ground.
Aha! But the cunning monkeys reasoned that if they could capture some of these birds, they could reap the benefit of gorging themselves on the eggs of these creatures once again. That, after all, was the reason the birds were still in existence: that they had the ability to reproduce by doing it in the trees away from the creatures of the forest floor. So slowly the monkeys began to fashion a means for capturing some of the birds and domesticating them and eating their eggs. And that practice evolved into the factory farmed chickens of today that have lost the ability to even use their wings as defense against the creatures of the forest floor. They have evolved into junk food for unthinking monkeys that suffer as a result from the diseases of eating diseased, un-natural food not allowed to roam freely and to exercise the behavior that was their salvation; instead they are de-evolved into sickly and sickening creatures suffering at the will of supposed “intelligent” and “superior” captors, who, in turn, suffer by diet deficiency.
The point is: do you wish to be a chicken or an eagle? Then you must take risks.
A long time ago, some observant monkeys noticed that not all birds made it to adulthood. It was noticed that some birds, upon being born, were tossed out of the nest high in the trees by rival siblings competing for food. Of course the poor unfortunate baby birds fell to the ground to be gobbled up by the creatures of the forest floor. All of the baby birds that grew to adulthood ultimately had to leave the nest to gather their own food, for their parent birds could not live forever foraging for food for both themselves and their young.
When the time came for the young birds to fly, only those who could, survived because they were the ones who were mature enough and evolved enough to fly; the others fell to the ground and were gobbled up by the creatures that lived on the forest floor. But the ones that flew became the able, magnificent eagles, hawks and sparrows that inhabit the skies and lived to produce more of their kind. Despite the danger of placing their nests high in the trees to allow their young to escape being devoured by the creatures who inhabit the forest floor, and the fact that, as a result, not all baby birds survived the ordeal of maturing in the treetops, some birds did live to reproduce and thrive and managed to escape the certain threat to becoming extinct by remaining close to the ground.
Aha! But the cunning monkeys reasoned that if they could capture some of these birds, they could reap the benefit of gorging themselves on the eggs of these creatures once again. That, after all, was the reason the birds were still in existence: that they had the ability to reproduce by doing it in the trees away from the creatures of the forest floor. So slowly the monkeys began to fashion a means for capturing some of the birds and domesticating them and eating their eggs. And that practice evolved into the factory farmed chickens of today that have lost the ability to even use their wings as defense against the creatures of the forest floor. They have evolved into junk food for unthinking monkeys that suffer as a result from the diseases of eating diseased, un-natural food not allowed to roam freely and to exercise the behavior that was their salvation; instead they are de-evolved into sickly and sickening creatures suffering at the will of supposed “intelligent” and “superior” captors, who, in turn, suffer by diet deficiency.
The point is: do you wish to be a chicken or an eagle? Then you must take risks.
10-27-2004, 07:49 PM
#65
Cottage Industry Sponsor
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Kaz
To me the speed limit is whatever my car can go in any given road conditions without me incurring a ticket, or hitting anyone else.
You need to dumb it down so that every illiterate immigrant can understand it, too! "Speed kills" is probably the most clever "campaign" for strict limits. Makes the dumb feel protected and follow the limits blindly. Even, if the conditions are such that even the posted limit is unreasonable.
BTW: I had hoped to meet you at the Sharktoberfest, but you turned out to be a no-show...
10-27-2004, 07:57 PM
#66
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Draper, UT
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicole- I feel your pain. I too got a ticket last night and plan to fight it. Mine was for 81 in a 65. I maintain that I never exceeded 80, and the 4x4 not far behind me was travelling at the same speed.
Good luck.
Good luck.
10-27-2004, 07:58 PM
#67
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Ron_H
...The point is: do you wish to be a chicken or an eagle? Then you must take risks.
But will never do it while speeding as that is too risky. I could have heart failure and....Ron,
I think I understand your point but not exactly how it relates. I think it would be fair to add chicken, eagle, and monkey? That is unless I totally don't get your point.
10-27-2004, 07:59 PM
#68
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Great Northwest
Posts: 12,264
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
A little OT but not by much. The State police set up 'incognito' as a survey unit along HWY 26 at the base of Mt Hood last week and popped 52 very unsuspecting speeders. 
10-27-2004, 08:02 PM
#69
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I am not sure if the laws are very different in CA, but here in Florida you will never get "convicted" on a speeding ticket. You give it to an attorney and he will always get you off. After all it still is: In dubio pro reo. And how is one cop in the dessert going to proof how fast you went???
The problem with a sympathetic judge is that it will cost you court fees as much as the ticket would have been. But no points and no insurance increase. The other problem is that in remote locations where where there are no traffic citation firms, attorneys can be expensive.
I have been to court once for a ticket and thought that I had to explain anything. It took about ten seconds. The judge called my case, my attorney rattled down some legal mambo jambo and the judge responded with case dismissed. He never even asked the cop for his opinion who was present as well.
It was interesting to hear some others though that defended themself, at least tried to and they got slammed quick...
Good luck,
Sab.
The problem with a sympathetic judge is that it will cost you court fees as much as the ticket would have been. But no points and no insurance increase. The other problem is that in remote locations where where there are no traffic citation firms, attorneys can be expensive.
I have been to court once for a ticket and thought that I had to explain anything. It took about ten seconds. The judge called my case, my attorney rattled down some legal mambo jambo and the judge responded with case dismissed. He never even asked the cop for his opinion who was present as well.
It was interesting to hear some others though that defended themself, at least tried to and they got slammed quick...
Good luck,
Sab.
10-27-2004, 09:45 PM
#70
Rennlist Member
Nicole, sorry to hear about your run-in with the revenuers. Others have offered many good thoughts on what to do from here. Richard's experience and suggestions regarding that particular area may be most pertinent.
Now, probing into the "hindsight" and "what to do" areas... I have to say that my V1 saved my butt at least 5 times on this journey... I had to drop anchor from triple digits more than once. With a potential closing speed well over 200mph the extra warning provided by the V1 was indispensable. At least a couple of times, I wouldn't have had a prayer without this nifty device.
I have considered wiring up the V1 to my brakelights, so that a warning would disable them, but there are enough false alarms that I would have safety concerns with this approach. Easy enough to do, but I want more control. I have a blank-off plate in my console where a sunroof &/or rear wiper switch would go... maybe a rear wiper switch is the way to go.
I accept full responsibility for the risks I take, but I agree on the nonuniform enforcement and the large number of police that seem to think that the law does not apply to them, that they are somehow above it or better than it. I have seen cops literally run a red light right in front of me... for what? I happened to be going the same way on one occasion, and he pulled into a Winchell's donut shop where there were 3 other cruisers parked. I stopped and watched as he got out and started jawboning and joking with his buddies.
Officers are empowered to bend or break traffic laws when responding to an emergency, but they are required by law to have -- at a minimum -- a flashing yellow light facing to the rear when doing so. If I had a dollar for every time I have seen a cop breaking traffic laws WITHOUT respecting the law about the flashing yellow light, I could probably go out and buy a GTS with that money.
Quite frankly, I find it very hard to swallow when a cop tries to harass me about some minor thing, when every time I see a cop they are breaking the law themselves... even breaking the more lenient laws that apply to them. I don't give a rats *** who shoots at cops, gives them a hard time, how tough their job is... if they can't follow the laws they are claiming to enforce then they are hypocrites and worthy of less respect IMHO than someone who goes through life matching their words and their deeds. And don't give me any of that "All cops are heroes" BS... some of them are as crooked, as full of lies, as the people they claim to be "saving" us from.
There are some really terrific cops... I have personally known quite a few. Wearing a badge does not make a guy a good guy though. Nor does it make him a bad guy. As with all other people, my reaction to them is based on their actions taken individually, and my lack of faith that they are looking out for me, protecting me, is the result of personal experience.
OK, enough ranting. Nicole, suffice to say, I feel your pain... and I wish you the best of luck. We all have to take our lumps sometimes, but I will never recommend anyone just lay down and take them. If you go down, go down fighting! The only way to change the system, short of revolution, is to use the system itself. Find the loophole... don't be another victim of the uniformed King City Muggers if you can help it!
Now, probing into the "hindsight" and "what to do" areas... I have to say that my V1 saved my butt at least 5 times on this journey... I had to drop anchor from triple digits more than once. With a potential closing speed well over 200mph the extra warning provided by the V1 was indispensable. At least a couple of times, I wouldn't have had a prayer without this nifty device.
I have considered wiring up the V1 to my brakelights, so that a warning would disable them, but there are enough false alarms that I would have safety concerns with this approach. Easy enough to do, but I want more control. I have a blank-off plate in my console where a sunroof &/or rear wiper switch would go... maybe a rear wiper switch is the way to go.
I accept full responsibility for the risks I take, but I agree on the nonuniform enforcement and the large number of police that seem to think that the law does not apply to them, that they are somehow above it or better than it. I have seen cops literally run a red light right in front of me... for what? I happened to be going the same way on one occasion, and he pulled into a Winchell's donut shop where there were 3 other cruisers parked. I stopped and watched as he got out and started jawboning and joking with his buddies.
Officers are empowered to bend or break traffic laws when responding to an emergency, but they are required by law to have -- at a minimum -- a flashing yellow light facing to the rear when doing so. If I had a dollar for every time I have seen a cop breaking traffic laws WITHOUT respecting the law about the flashing yellow light, I could probably go out and buy a GTS with that money.
Quite frankly, I find it very hard to swallow when a cop tries to harass me about some minor thing, when every time I see a cop they are breaking the law themselves... even breaking the more lenient laws that apply to them. I don't give a rats *** who shoots at cops, gives them a hard time, how tough their job is... if they can't follow the laws they are claiming to enforce then they are hypocrites and worthy of less respect IMHO than someone who goes through life matching their words and their deeds. And don't give me any of that "All cops are heroes" BS... some of them are as crooked, as full of lies, as the people they claim to be "saving" us from.
There are some really terrific cops... I have personally known quite a few. Wearing a badge does not make a guy a good guy though. Nor does it make him a bad guy. As with all other people, my reaction to them is based on their actions taken individually, and my lack of faith that they are looking out for me, protecting me, is the result of personal experience.
OK, enough ranting. Nicole, suffice to say, I feel your pain... and I wish you the best of luck. We all have to take our lumps sometimes, but I will never recommend anyone just lay down and take them. If you go down, go down fighting! The only way to change the system, short of revolution, is to use the system itself. Find the loophole... don't be another victim of the uniformed King City Muggers if you can help it!
10-27-2004, 09:57 PM
#71
Drifting
Having walked a mile in an officer's shoes and freely admitting that I speed whenever safe & reasonable, I think that the "cops" should be allowed to do the job that they are trained for.......To Serve & PROTECT! I don't think that it should be their task to enhance revenue for the county/city/state. They have a hard enough job when it comes down to it and not much money for doing it. Get them off the streets, allow them to ticket someone who is unsafe but keep them available for their intended job. Revenue enhancement by "other" means is such bulls*it! I admit to speeding and if caught, will pay a reasonable fine. When it's unreasonable, I will fight it to the death. I received a ticket in Nv. this year returning from a race, stickers still all over my car, race gear still installed, harnessed in. I was clocked at 109mph. I had just teched in a racing venue for 140mph continuous speed and gotten a 3rd place trophy in my speed class. There were no other cars for probably a mile either direction. Pretty obvious that I could handle the speed being driven. A Nevada HP hit me with instant on from the other direction over a rise. (My V-1 failed me there!) He wrote me for 109, saying that he did give me a break by not hauling me to jail. Who was I harming? Was I endangering anyone other than possibly myself? It was the middle of the day in the middle of Nevada with next to no traffic in either direction. Ok, I was speeding and did get caught. Now for the fun part. $447.00! Here is where my problem lies. Who sets these "tolls"? Not you nor I, the voters. We don't have a say in it at all. I know of people caught using drugs, or 1st time DUI's or people accused of assault that pay less in fines. In all honesty, I had been doing over 150mph about a mile earlier (12 mile straight). Just imagine that toll........
And as far as it being a right or a privilege to be able to drive, I live in a free country where I am taught to believe I have the freedom to do as I please as long as I am not harming anyone else or interfering with their rights. Where does this privilege come from? Did I purchase this car? Do I not have the right to drive it? I pay my taxes that maintain the road, register my car with the government and pay all other associated taxes. You're saying that someone I had the power to elect can take away my rights? (I have to stop here or my true North Idaho "Load yer' guns boys!" background will show through.)
Get the soccor moms in their SUV's talking on the phone, putting on their make-up and swatting at the kids/dog while doing 80 on a crowded freeway. That's much more unsafe than me going through the desert at even double the speed limit. BTW, I know whereas I speak. I have never had an accident, caused an accident, filed an insurance claim and have pretty much hauled *** everywhere I have gone. I have gotten tickets in more states than I can count or remember but this means that I am an unsafe driver to my insurance company? I am single, my insurance is more. I drive a Porsche, my insurance is even more. I get caught speeding, my insurance is much more. Once again for emphasis, NO ACCIDENTS, NO INSURANCE CLAIMS EVER IN MY LIFE! It's all about the dollar, not the safety aspect. The same as officers ticketing the general public for most speeding violations, it's all about the money, safety has little to do with it most of the time. Unfortunately, the officers that I know have admitted to me that they are paid to write tickets. These are friends of mine. They will get an *** chewing if they don't. Do they have a written quota? Maybe not but if one falls behind his ticket writing average of so many per hour, they get an earful. It really doesn't make their life any better and hearing about it from us doesn't help. They are doing what they have to if they want to keep their job. Believe it or not, they probably have that job because they think they can help society in their own way. Their are some overzealous azzholes out there that really enjoy writing tickets especially to Porsche owners, but that's not the majority. They would much rather be doing the real aspect of their job.
I just built a supercharged 89' auto S4 for a retired Swat Team member, tell me he doesn't let it loose sometimes........more like all the time. One of the few people that scares me in a car. I turned up a 2003 supercharged Cobra for another retired police officer. They are all human, just doing a job forced on them by the people we elected that don't hear a word we say.
Dave
And as far as it being a right or a privilege to be able to drive, I live in a free country where I am taught to believe I have the freedom to do as I please as long as I am not harming anyone else or interfering with their rights. Where does this privilege come from? Did I purchase this car? Do I not have the right to drive it? I pay my taxes that maintain the road, register my car with the government and pay all other associated taxes. You're saying that someone I had the power to elect can take away my rights? (I have to stop here or my true North Idaho "Load yer' guns boys!" background will show through.)
Get the soccor moms in their SUV's talking on the phone, putting on their make-up and swatting at the kids/dog while doing 80 on a crowded freeway. That's much more unsafe than me going through the desert at even double the speed limit. BTW, I know whereas I speak. I have never had an accident, caused an accident, filed an insurance claim and have pretty much hauled *** everywhere I have gone. I have gotten tickets in more states than I can count or remember but this means that I am an unsafe driver to my insurance company? I am single, my insurance is more. I drive a Porsche, my insurance is even more. I get caught speeding, my insurance is much more. Once again for emphasis, NO ACCIDENTS, NO INSURANCE CLAIMS EVER IN MY LIFE! It's all about the dollar, not the safety aspect. The same as officers ticketing the general public for most speeding violations, it's all about the money, safety has little to do with it most of the time. Unfortunately, the officers that I know have admitted to me that they are paid to write tickets. These are friends of mine. They will get an *** chewing if they don't. Do they have a written quota? Maybe not but if one falls behind his ticket writing average of so many per hour, they get an earful. It really doesn't make their life any better and hearing about it from us doesn't help. They are doing what they have to if they want to keep their job. Believe it or not, they probably have that job because they think they can help society in their own way. Their are some overzealous azzholes out there that really enjoy writing tickets especially to Porsche owners, but that's not the majority. They would much rather be doing the real aspect of their job.
I just built a supercharged 89' auto S4 for a retired Swat Team member, tell me he doesn't let it loose sometimes........more like all the time. One of the few people that scares me in a car. I turned up a 2003 supercharged Cobra for another retired police officer. They are all human, just doing a job forced on them by the people we elected that don't hear a word we say.
Dave
10-27-2004, 10:19 PM
#72
Cottage Industry Sponsor
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
One customer of mine, who happens to be a Police Officer, told me the nice thing about his job is that everything he used to get in trouble for, he can now do at work...
10-27-2004, 10:36 PM
#74
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Ketchmi
Having walked a mile in an officer's shoes and freely admitting that I speed whenever safe & reasonable, I think that the "cops" should be allowed to do the job that they are trained for.......To Serve & PROTECT! Dave
And the congregation said: "AMEN"!!!!
10-27-2004, 10:43 PM
#75
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Moore Co. NC
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave makes some good points, one of the most important, I think, is that your rants should be at the system, not the police. An old friend, who is one of the very best defense attorneys on the east coast, told me many years ago, when I was upset that a judge had let walk the doer of an especially violent assault, that the community gets the enforcement that it wants. That is, the community elects the judges, prosecutors, etc. that do what they want.
Now to my rant, I'm not going to get too upset about traffic law enforcement as long as we allow people who really shouldn't be driving a tricycle, operating poorly maintained vehicles, on the roads. I've driven on the autobahns, and have had my Porsche fail TUF because of mud on a brake line, I've had friends take several years to pass their driving test, but still there are some pretty hellacious accidents there. Imagine what a mess we'd have if we let folks who can't drive or have a history of DUI's, in cars that have 3 different size tires, broken windshields, and a door tied on with rope, run 70 or 80 on the highway.
So, let's legislate stricter inspection laws, tougher licensing requirements, mandatory jail terms for DWI's, and then I'll join you in being p***ed off at the police. Until then, I'll trust in my luck, Bel, and knowledge of where we like to work. I'll speed if I want to, but while being aware that I may pay some consequences.
Now to my rant, I'm not going to get too upset about traffic law enforcement as long as we allow people who really shouldn't be driving a tricycle, operating poorly maintained vehicles, on the roads. I've driven on the autobahns, and have had my Porsche fail TUF because of mud on a brake line, I've had friends take several years to pass their driving test, but still there are some pretty hellacious accidents there. Imagine what a mess we'd have if we let folks who can't drive or have a history of DUI's, in cars that have 3 different size tires, broken windshields, and a door tied on with rope, run 70 or 80 on the highway.
So, let's legislate stricter inspection laws, tougher licensing requirements, mandatory jail terms for DWI's, and then I'll join you in being p***ed off at the police. Until then, I'll trust in my luck, Bel, and knowledge of where we like to work. I'll speed if I want to, but while being aware that I may pay some consequences.