Tigershark:

My last sentence was not directed to you specifically, but rather to the population as a whole. My point is the responsibility is with "we, the people", to change the situation which is bound to deteriorate if left as is. You as an officer don't necessarily know the deliberate attempts to falsify engineering reports and certainly are not the one responsible for arbitrary speed limits on our freeways. They must be changed but probably won't until we, the people wake up and realize that what we intuitively sense as wrong is made right. Dodging the law all the time won't remove the risks built in to the system you are charged with enforcing. It is like an ostrich burying its head in the sand and hoping things will get better. They won't. We need to realize we are all at risk, not 'the other guy because I am too safe". Hey, everyone thinks they are a good driver right? Well, that isn't enough. Unrealistic speed restrictions are killing us, as are unrealistic criminal attitudes towards other prohibited actions in our society. And we must all take a stand to chage them or pay the price of ignorance and denial.

Post a photo of your yellow shark when you get it.

 

No problem, although that might be expensive. I agree with alot of what you say but not everything. I was waiting for the legalize marijuana speech. Yes I-80 can handle good drivers at 90mph, but there are alot of people who are not good drivers. What do we do with them? Hence my blue route suggestion. I'm surprised you didn't chime in on that one being from the People's Republic of California.

 

Sorry. The expensive part was in refrence to painting one. If I find black over tan, I'll be happy. The PRC comment was in the extreme liberal left running loose in the Golden State. Feinstein, Boxer, et al...

 

I grew up in Germany and have probably 100k miles over 120 MPH under my belt.
It would probably be more dangerous lifting speed limits here then some of us just going for it once in a while.
Germany has strickt inspections on each vehicle every two years. Cars have to pass a series of vigorous tests and if they fail are immediately off the road. Passing a drivers license test is equivalent of a small planes pilot licens. And most of all the Autobahn is enclosed by tripple band guard rales.
I was in the passenger seat of my friends 500E AMG once at 180 MPH when he blew a tire and lost control. The car was absolutely totaled, but we where not hurt. The car kept bouncing of the guard rails until it stopped. The same incident on any highway here would have benn 100% fatal.
Laws are enforced in a differnt priority, where you immediately loose your license if you pass another car on the right or if you pull up too close to another car. no arguments there, they take a picture and take you license, end of story...

 

I can't agree with you more Sab. I have friends in this "cause" who favor no speed limits, while I favor advisory ones. But I agree that lifting them at once is inviting disaster. I recall my attitude as a teenager that I was invincible... .....coupled with my "daddy cool" view of myself at that age. And I certainly favor the increased level of knowledge and expertise required to get a license. No exceptions. You got it and understand it or no license. And the lies that are given out in driver training are erased and never given another thought. Nicole has already clued me in to the requirements in Germany and I applaud them. Pass on the right and you lose big time. No discussion. Block the left lane and you get nailed. No exception. When I pass on the right a voice tells me that I know this is more dangerous. Where is the law to nail the left lane hog??? According to Nicole, broken down cars are not seen on the German roads because they are required to pass stiff inspections. Why not here? Is it that we assume it is so safe to drive so slowly? Moronic.
Medieval. Foolish in the extreme. I know my car is going to travel slightly more than 65 mph so I must maintain it. I should maintain it regardless of its intended use.

Ah, yes, Tigershark.....the people's republic of Kalifornia. Just as you don't want all officers to be judged by a few goons, please don't judge all of us by Boxer or Feinstein. Feinstein carries in her purse a .38 while urging gun control and no concealed carry. As for "blue" lanes of course I favor graded licenses. And graded road use. What's the debate? Maybe we should include a physical periodically to exclude those blobs who abuse their bodies and are physically compromised without realizing it. You drink you spend more time thinking and less time driving. You work out, you make out with more privileges. Sounds like I'm going to get a call by the ACLU, huh?
You make an attempt to gain more driver skills and training, and you gain more privileges. The only problem with this idea is the chance for abuse by idiots who manipulate the system. Currently, the traffic school system in Kalifornia is a laugh factory. You get nailed for violating an illegal speed law and can escape notice by your insurance company by attending a session or two to hear lies and misconceptions that perpetuate the current ignorant and self defeating system. Sort of like criminalistically handling drugs and prisons that punish, and thereby insure a constant supply of criminals in a revolving door manner, rather than realistically dealing with the problem. You knew I would get to the pot argument, right?? Well, the prison guard's union is the most powerful in Kalifornia; think they want the system changed? I don't think so. Yet we continue building more prisons to handle the offenders that are created by the system's medieval attitude on a problem that is fostered by the pharmaceutical industry and archaic views on crime and punishment. Lots of new "criminals" for them to "guard". And lots of new "criminals" for our current traffic system and court system to handle and to whom the insurance companies can charge increased rates without proving that they are really in fact dangerous risks. Lets be honest. If everyone had a computer in their car that reported violations it would be a matter of HOURS before everyone would lose their license under current conditions. End of discussion. The system feeds on itself. One thing we are not producing is more capable drivers or even human organisms. Or truth.

As for the pot issue: I don't smoke or use it, but I ask again why the medical marijuana users are not all going to prison for moving on to harder and more damaging drugs and crime?? Why are they not going berserk? They are using pot regularly in this land. Now someone couldn't have lied to us could they? Naw. And I ask you if you enjoy anyone having a contemptuous view of the laws and of the enforcers of those laws? Not meant to grind you. Just asking?
The CA Dept of Transportation as I said, realizes that people treated contrary to sound practices will ultimately question the sanity of laws unfairly and unscientifically founded. They lose respect for the law and for officers. Something is wrong here, sir. What is being told to us is contrary to the facts. In other parts of the world, people are held responsible for their actions and must conduct themselves accordingly, rather than relying on some "authority" to force them to act contrary to nature, or some arbitrarily founded law to protect them. What say you to that Mr. Shark?

I must leave now because my uncle, George, who is one of those people that loves to spend money; he needs some more and I must find a way to make it for him. Nice talking with you.

 

I couldn't forget this re: "blue" lanes and limits. I have an objection to ANY limits of behavior, particularly performance limits. Who am I to say that a particular individual is incapable of either performing to a certain level, or of achieving a particular level of performance by applied effort and training?
Of all persons, a police officer must realize that. Look at them. They are expected to perform to a standard some would consider beyond normal. But my objection comes when they assume or society assumes that others are not capable of performing to such or even higher levels. We know that is crap.
The sky is the limit and to apply limits is counterproductive to effectiveness. Who is anyone to assume my limits or anyone else's limits? How do you know my limits? Do you know your threshold of pain? Do you know how long you can go without eating? Do you know my intellectual capability? How do you know that? I mean no disrespect for the next statement: consider the con of referring to police officers as "our finest": appealing to ego to entice them into performing distasteful and dangerous jobs. Are they honestly our finest? Some are exemplary, but others may not be so well equipped. The same may be said for almost any position in society. But to hold one level of performance as the standard, and then to limit exceeding it, is absurd. And this is proven every day if we are honest. And exceeded by what are otherwise known as "everyday people", both women and men. Yes, I am a devotee of Ayn Rand's concept of heroic behavioral qualities. And so should you be. Limits? Bah. Banish them.
Some people lack what we would call "natural" ability but perform above the level of others through training and discipline, and still haven't reached their limits. NO LIMITS. Move in to the right lane please. I will do the same if I feel I am holding back another person. Why do the best performing machines come from the lands allowing less limitations????

Whew. I must catch my breath.

 

Some intresting points, but do you really think we could lift standards in this country? People drive everyday with no or suspended licenses. You speak of utopia, but it can not exist. The majority of people in this country could possibly have the ability to regulate themselves, but what about the rest? I'm not comfortable with the idea of 17 year old pot heads getting behind the wheel of a car and being turned loose against society. What happenes when they kill a family member that did nothing wrong then go out that night? Without rules you have anarchy. You can call it naturla selection, but I think it's a bit unrealistic. We agree on alot, but I think I'll agree to disagree on some aspects. You can say there is no way to monitor or establish your ability behind the wheel, but what happens when you come booking down the road at 150 and some idiot cuts you off, and the combined carnage kills my wife? I'll take standards, no matter how mildly unrealistic. It's not like we have a national 45mph speed limit. Most traffic in a 65 travels at 75. Most traffic in a 55 travels at 70 to 75 per an article in Car and Driver or Automobile I read. It seems we are able to self regulate already within reason. As for prisons and the like, we already allow far to many people out early, I can't fathom your "military-industrial" type conspiracy to build more prisons. Where do you want to put the armed robbers and rapists? I have a zero tolerence view on drug use, and that dates before my current position. Maybe we could agree on some type of treatment for first time offenders, but don't tell me there are not people that deserve incarceration. As for California, that was a little tongue in cheek, but you run right up there with New Jersey in the left leaning leaders. Arnold being the exception. I applaude you and your citizens for voting him in.

 

You will need to excuse me as I need some sleep, but I will try to answer.

You want to penalize all of us for the risks we assume will be created by a few. Those risks will always be there. Are we to cower in a corner because of them? Other parts of the world have the same risks present (assumed) and
that doesn't stop them from going on with their lives. Your car was built in one of those countries and is regularly driven at three times our speed limits safely and with the same risks you claim will exist if the limit is raised. You also assume that we ALL cannot function without regulation; that we are not capable of self regulation. The traffic engineers disagree with you. They recommend setting limits according to the 85th percentile of FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. That means precisely what it says. A representative sample is taken of traffic on a roadway section with: 1) no visible law enforcement or speed limit signs; 2) no visible work crews or repair work being performed;
3) no visible hazards or perceived hazards such as poor pavement, driveways, obscured conditions, etc., that would compromise a driver's eagerness to proceed; 4)no curves or hills or changes that would affect speed in the minds of the drivers sampled over the period of time sampled; 5) clear visibility and weather. Free flowing means no inhibitions. At what speed would the traffic move under those conditions, unregulated. The samples are taken at different times of the day and the 85th percentile is then recorded, meaning the speed at which 85 percent of drivers drive, and then ROUNDED UP 5 mph, unless conditions unperceived to the drivers such as accident records for the past 5 years or invisible driveways or road conditions warrant leaving the limit at the 85th percentile or lowering it 5 mph. Such conditions must be listed in the survey. Obviously, they are seeking the speeds at which a majority of drivers feel comfortable given no perceived restrictions and the state of their ability, health and condition of their vehicles; on a truck route, more trucks will be sampled, while on a freeway or open road, more sedans or coupes will be sampled. The presence of police renders the sample ineffective. There is also a "safe for conditions" which the engineers record which is usually much higher than the limit set. And notice I said "engineers". Federal law (MUTCD) states that the surveys must be performed by a traffic engineer, no one else. This is usually violated and renders the surveys suspect or illegal. Get the picture? No limits or cops visible. At what would drivers drive? As cars become better engineered and competition from more demanding countries also influences vehicle design, (spell that Germany or Italy where survival depends on vehicles better suited for higher sustained speeds and twisty narrow roads), speeds raise because drivers feel more comfortable at higher speeds and the cars can take such speeds. Thus engineering surveys are supposed to be performed every 5 years; they aren't, usually, in violation of Federal law. And not just the speeds are sampled, but an extensive review of past performance over the subject road must be performed to identify conditions which might not be apparent to drivers, such as accident records, and these factors are ideally taken into account. NO WHERE in this process is there provision for ARBITRARY decisions or limits. They are scientifically set by engineers. Period.

So where is your evidence that higher limits leads to higher fatalities or accidents? There is NO CORRELATION. None. Zero. In fact the opposite is true. Treat people like children and they behave like them. USA the land of infantality and overprotective parents. You can't find any statistics that support your claim that we will suffer terrible consequences when the limits are raised and eventually lifted in appropriate places. In fact, Montana confirms this fact. When the limits were lifted entirely, the accident rate went down; when the limit was reinstated, the rate went up drastically. And it is still up. As a driver perceives danger or risk, he reacts accordingly and operates at a higher level of alertness. Take the responsibility away from him and let him defer to the speed limit, and he will plod along at the limit feeling immune to danger and half asleep, literally. Get that fact: higher limits = less accidents. Check out the autobahn rates relative to the speeds traveled. Zero risk is absurd. Children in padded cribs. You are going to tell me that your 928 is unsafe to drive faster than 90 mph on the appropriate roads? And a Taurus is equal to a 928? Or a Peterbuilt? How about a Ruf? Give me a break. De-regulate.
You want to protect us from ourselves. Evidence to the contrary is abundant and being generated every day. What makes us so different from other peoples elsewhere in the world? I'll tell you what. The insurance companies who stand to benefit from increased assertions of danger that are unsubstantiated and cannot be proven. And municipalities, and ambulance drivers, and emergency room personnel, and doctors and lawyers, ad nauseum. No proof. In fact I can lay my hands on proof to the contrary tomorrow. The noble ideal is the assumption of ability, not inability. And there will always be example of terrible accidents from which you want to protect us. Those risks will be present no matter what . I assert that over regulation is the view of utopia, not the other way around. Fantasyland. Fairy tales. Disneyland. The real world asks that we accept personal responsibilty, not be followed around by our guardians to protect us from POSSIBLE catastrophe that never happens. Lose the diaper mentality please.


As for penal institutions, we KNOW that our present drug laws and attitudes are not working....for us. They are working for the police, the courts, the prisons and their staffs, the fairies among us who would assert that they are superior to the "drug addicts" because they don't need to do drugs. They say that with a drink of alcohol in their hand at a cocktail party. The attitudes are also working for the pharmaceutical companies that are unable to patent the drugs they are fighting to suppress, like marijuana. They stand to lose millions if it is legalized again.(it was once legally available in drugstores with no ill effects on society). Where is your proof that it is so dangerous to anyone? It is dangerous because it theatens to end some of the aggression that leads to criminal behavior and thus threatens to put the police out of business. Proof. Give me proof. In fact the reverse is true, and Tigershark, you should know that. No, I don't do pot. I know many contributing professional people in this and othe societies that have and probably do still use it. There are people sitting in jail now for possession of one joint and they are doing ten years. C'mon don't lay that crap on me about pot. Go to Amsterdam where it may be bought and consumed in the park and ask the police how many dopers they arrest for pot? They spend their time chasing real criminals, not dopers. Get real. It is sold by dealers of more dangerous drugs because it is criminalized and thus purchasers are more inclined to be introduced to those also. Decriminalize it and that association disappears. That would be bad for cop business though wouldn't it? Where is the evidence that regular pot consumption has led to increases in crime or of consumption of more dangerous drugs by those medical marijuana users in various cities in this country? It isn't there. Find it if you can. Or start questioning what you have been told and start thinking for yourself. And what of heroin addiction? Or crack? I have seen people so messed up on crack they were basket cases. What does prison do for them or for us? Does it seek to deal with the underlying problem? Does it seek to reverse the causes and educate and enoble the addict or raise their self esteem? I don't think so. It does insure a high recidivism rate, which is good for keeping the cops and the prisons in business. When was the last time a library was built in a disadvantaged neighborhood such as Oakland, CA. rather than arrest people who had nothing better to do than sell dope? I know. I lived there for four years with my friend Mr. Winchester. And all the cops were afraid of the dopers. Give me a break.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue Tigershark. I have walked both roads with shiny brass and also funky sneakers with holes in them. Don't preach that naive crap to me. I have the scars to prove it. It is about enlightened attitudes that are cost effective. It is about reason and objectivity, rather than blind allegiance to authority. It is about proof and what is visible, not wished to be true. No Disneyland here. If you got the bail money, you walk. If not, you suck. That's the way it is, Mr. Shark. I know.

On to the other subject: prisons, punishment, and rehabilitation. What you have here is a system about as archaic and medieval as you can get. It is one that insures a continual parade of repeat offenders and high recidivism rates. That's good for your profession though isn't it? But it is bad for our society, because it continues to endanger it, and it bleeds funds away from other more effective methods of insuring crime will decrease, such as education. That will in turn make our population more effective at competing in the world marketplace. But then the prisons and associated institutions and occupations that are parasitical to them would suffer, wouldn't they? Liberal? Define liberal. If you mean bleeding heart, I disagree. If you mean someone who thinks for himself instead of blindly accepting dictates of some emotionally challenged authoritairan figure without discovering the truth for himself, then maybe it is a bit more accurate. Truth is what we are after. Not authoritarian dogma. Call that whatever you like. Some sheeple can not function any othe way, and choose to follow around anyone perceived as powerful or powerfully authorized. Ever read history? I ask you to read Arnold Toynbee who cautions that the first step in the decline of any powerful society is the professionalization of the military who then re-enter society and attempt to run it in an authoritarian manner. Every example has led the way to eventual failure.

Innocent until proven guilty. Live it, or adopt it. We are noble creatures. Find me someone who claims othewise, and I will show you someone to distrust. You try to eliminate all criminal types from our world. Good luck. You will need to live eternally, for many of those types are simply defined as criminals, not really criminals. How about jailing all fornicators? They are criminals, right? Good luck. Who would be left? The Middle Ages are over. Move into the right lane, please.

Mr. Tigershark, this is not about cops. I have police ends who, if they called me at this moment, could count on me to get on a plane or a boat or a fast car and come to help them. I mean that. They were there for me. It is about truth.

 

Wow, you seem to get very defensive over what I consider a null issue. We will never have a society in this country like we have in Germany, as much as I would like us to have. German roads do have speed limits other then the Autobahn. The Autobahn is not completely drive as fast as you want. Standards exist all over the world. Feel free to step off the soap box. I told you I agree with some of your points, others I disagree with. That's life. I'm done other then expressing opposing points of view, I'm not the defender of your "oppressed" freedoms. Relax.

 

I can relate to most of the things you deal with. I'm a self employed vehicle repossessor in Philly. To say that i've seen some really crazy 'ethnic' behaivour would be the mildest of all understatements, lol.

My dad was a philly narcotics cop, and my 1st repo partner is now a philly transit cop. I know a lot of cops, and sympathise with the job they do, and MOST times i enjoy quite a lot of professional courtesy from them. But i've had my run-ins with flat out jerk-offs too(both in traffifc stops and in the course of my profession).

It's a tough job, i often wish we had robots performing it though, because at least they'd be consistent(and therefore a hell of a lot more predictible, lol!).

PS: I was a US Army Infantry Sniper from 1987-1990.

 

Ron is coming from the perspective of personal freedom and personal responsibility. I sympathize with his views, but i sadly feel the days of real live 'freedom' in most parts of this country are long since passed.

Big brother is at every intersection, the state apparatus seems everywhere, and everything from the maximum allowable height of the grass on your lawn to what PERSONAL safety measures you take when you drive are regulated.

Today's America is hardly keeping with the spirit of the vision of America the founding fathers had...

 

OK I have to say this, been on my mind since I first read the heading of this thread: If she's cute, I'm all over that action

 

well, I say (sometimes) - if you can't beat'em - join'em!! I just got off the phone w/a CHP volunteer org leader: for a few hrs a month, you get a badge, ID card and guess who will not give you a ticket if you are their "brother"?? (unless you are doing something really stupid/dangerous) pretty cool, eh?? figured I better do something, now that my old gal is back on the road and I surely don't seem able to control myself w/all that new found braking/handling and insano power , and my luck won't hold forever...

another option for those that can't pass a drug test or that get hives around uniforms is the 1199 club, FOP, etc - booster clubs that helps out CHP, LAPD families, etc... I've been a Fraternal Order of Police and sherriffs dept supporter for years too - you get a sticker and ID card that MAY help out in a ticket situation (they usually just walked away after a "have a good day", depending on who's at bat and how bad/stupid I was). but for chp encounters (the predominant freeway/traffic entity out here) - the CHP thing is even better/ about the best you can do w/out diplomatic immunity or a SS/presidential authority clearence to fly on 4 wheels , since they won't honor my pilots license unless I'm in my plane (of course I've tried that too, but it just didn't work out)... I'd rather spend $$ on race fuel and entry fees rather than attys and courts, so being a joiner seems like the easy way to avoid all the fuss if one is inclined to not drive strictly by the book all the time... again - it's not a bulletproof vest for stupidity/recklessness, but should help squelch those pesky minor infractions...

realistically speaking, changing our society by getting all the illegals, poor, uninsured, incompetent and otherwise unsafe drivers and vehicles up to a decent std. to safely travel at higher speeds here would be a monumental task of epic proportions. heck, after seeing the carnage they create just on surface streets/low speeds, it's probably easier to establish world peace or keep our wives happy all the time, hehehe... of course, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's a long uphill battle at best, IMHO

 

Rob sadly you are correct. I say, when you get your FOB and CHP stickers, at least add a "Bad Cop No Donut" sticker to your window somewhere too

 

Given what's been recounted in this thread, why?