To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,526
#3,526
SamRebel35 said:
What about when they hide behind dumpsters in parking lots and shoot radar? That's not preventative in the least. And what about when they harrass or ticket people for warning oncoming drivers of a speed trap? If the true goal is really a safer road, wouldn't they be in favor of people slowing down by any means, even if it doesn't result in a revenue generating ticket?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the statute on warning other drivers so I won't speak to that. Might be a Georgia thing.

But I do agree they can get a bit aggressive from time to time on the speed enforcement. I'm not a huge fan of speed traps personally.
 
#3,527
#3,527
Rasputin_Vol said:
We can't even prevent terrorists attacks at the Boston Marathon or Paris with all of the surveillance and violations of civil liberties we have today. How much more surveillance and less liberties do you cops need?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize Paris was part of the US and had the same Constitutional Rights we have.
 
#3,528
#3,528
Grand Vol said:
I didn't realize Paris was part of the US and had the same Constitutional Rights we have.
Click to expand...

Give Obola time.... they are after all, the model socialist/progressive state in europe that welcomes all immigration regardless of their means to support themselves. It has been successful, hasn't it?
 
#3,531
#3,531
Grand Vol said:
So a bunch of jihadists are being compared to American motorists going 14 over the speed limit?
Click to expand...

Well, you saw the video... A high speed chase followed by 4 cops cars with multiple guns drawn.

Hell, Chris Dorner had every cop in Southern California shooting up cars with old white and Mexican women and actually was able to get the US/Mexican border sealed up for the first time in ages.

Eric Garner was allegedly selling loose cigarettes and had to be executed on thee streets like a dog.

At least terrorists can get 3 hots and a cot in Cuba.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,532
#3,532
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes, all that for doing 39 in a 25 zone. All the while hurting no one, and minding her own business. This whole thing could've been avoided if the copper had been out finding real criminals who are harming persons or property. Instead, he was out collecting revenue for his master the state.
Click to expand...

Wrong D...it was all that for acting like a psychotic Tourette.....lady acted so dumb it blows my mind.
 
#3,533
#3,533
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, you saw the video... A high speed chase followed by 4 cops cars with multiple guns drawn.

Hell, Chris Dorner had every cop in Southern California shooting up cars with old white and Mexican women and actually was able to get the US/Mexican border sealed up for the first time in ages.

Eric Garner was allegedly selling loose cigarettes and had to be executed on thee streets like a dog.

At least terrorists can get 3 hots and a cot in Cuba.
Click to expand...

I think you accuse me of someone who would attempt to defend the actions of the police in the Dorner and Garner cases.

How about **** no?
 
#3,535
#3,535
Grand Vol said:
I think you accuse me of someone who would attempt to defend the actions of the police in the Dorner and Garner cases.

How about **** no?
Click to expand...

The Dorner case was awful and no excuse at all for that....I saw no problem with what happened in the garner case....I have received over fifteen tickets in my lifetime and have no problem with police enforcing the speed limit....citizens know the law and it does save lives.
 
#3,536
#3,536
volbeast33 said:
The Dorner case was awful and no excuse at all for that....I saw no problem with what happened in the garner case....I have received over fifteen tickets in my lifetime and have no problem with police enforcing the speed limit....citizens know the law and it does save lives.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is questioning whether lives have been saved nor whether citizens are aware of the law. To the latter, certainly citizen awareness of statutes cannot serve to justify said statutes. To the former, the question is that, since speeding does not necessarily entail that one will injure others or damage property, is it just to hold up and take money from any person who happens to be driving faster than a given speed.

Let's put it this way: suppose you were able to see into the future and, further, see multiple possible outcomes of your action. You see someone speeding in the present and have the choice to either ticket them or let them go. You know, through your clairvoyance, that this person will never injure others or damage property. Do you still pursue and give them a ticket?

Many might be inclined to answer 'yes' for one of the following two reasons. First, it's the law and they broke it. This reason reduces to nothing more than rule-worship. Second, however, one may cite the deterrent factor involved in punishing this individual. The problem, however, with this way of thinking is three-fold: (1) plenty of us know the speed limit laws and the associated punishments, yet plenty of us (I'd say the majority of drivers) still speed, so deterrence isn't really working; (2) to make deterrence work, we'd probably have to make the current punishment harsher; (3) if we refuse (2), we are punishing this driver in vain, I.e., for no purpose; yet, (4) if we increase the punishment, now we are merely sacrificing one individual for the sake of "society". I think (4) is abhorrent and contrary to the ideals that led to the founding of this nation, as those ideals focus on lifting the individual above society.

Now, you might reject this thought-experiment simply because you think such experiments are mere fantasy play. Yet, when we actually look at the numbers of drivers, the numbers of those who speed, and the number of those who injure others and damage property, we can clearly see that it is highly unlikely to say of any one of them, taken as an isolated individual, that their speeding will result in any injury or damage. I.e., we find ourselves in a situation which very much approximates that of the clairvoyant in the thought-experiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,537
#3,537
Fulton County Sheriff to gun owners: Throw out NY SAFE Act pistol permit re-certification invite | syracuse.com

Fulton County Sheriff Thomas J. Lorey made it clear in a YouTube video that he intends to fight a part of the New York SAFE Act.

During a passionate speech to the Oath Keepers, an organization that advocates disobeying orders that they think violate the Constitution, Lorey explained how Fulton County residents should tear up invitations to re-certify their pistol permits.
Click to expand...
 
#3,538
#3,538
volbeast33 said:
The Dorner case was awful and no excuse at all for that....I saw no problem with what happened in the garner case....I have received over fifteen tickets in my lifetime and have no problem with police enforcing the speed limit....citizens know the law and it does save lives.
Click to expand...

You saw no problem with a guy dying for selling loose cigarettes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,540
#3,540
therealUT said:
I don't think anyone is questioning whether lives have been saved nor whether citizens are aware of the law. To the latter, certainly citizen awareness of statutes cannot serve to justify said statutes. To the former, the question is that, since speeding does not necessarily entail that one will injure others or damage property, is it just to hold up and take money from any person who happens to be driving faster than a given speed.
Click to expand...

This is greatly dependent on your definition of speeding. Which is why most LE will give you that grace of 5-10 over depending on location. Zipping along at 75 MPH through downtown Knoxville on I40 is 20 over the posted speed limit. Yet the vast majority of drivers aren't pulled over because there really is no reason for that absurdly low of a speed limit. And very likely the LE in the area know this and don't enforce it as much.

But while speeding doesn't entail one will always injure others or damage property, it does increase the likelihood of it. Decreased reaction times, force exponentially multiplied in a collision, roadways not designed for higher rates of speed...there are several other factors to consider, but those are off the top of my head. And yes, there generally are safety studies done for the speed limits and it's not as an arbitrary number as you would believe. 15 MPH in a school zone for example. That's due to studies done for the reaction time of drivers if a child darts out in front of a car, the force of the car if it hits someone and for the pedestrian reaction time as well.

I was an accident investigator for 13 years and the number one cause of most of the accidents I investigated? Speed too fast for conditions. Or put in other terms, speed too fast for a driver to control said vehicle. Which isn't an "official" term, but is pretty much as accurate as I can make it.

On the contrary, you can point to places like Montana where the Interstates don't have speed limits. Or Germany on the Autobahn. But even in those places, there are limits in certain areas due to safety concerns and the need for drivers to slow down for conditional factors.
 
#3,541
#3,541
Anyone that has ever taken a transportation engineering class will tell you that it is such a Voodoo science with so many approximations that absurdly conservative safety factors are added just so the PE can cover his arse in case there happens to be a horrific accident on the stretch of road that he designed. Just know that in most cases, if you're doing the speed limit, a more precise engineering approach would likely allow you to be going faster on that same stretch of road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,542
#3,542
Grand Vol said:
This is greatly dependent on your definition of speeding. Which is why most LE will give you that grace of 5-10 over depending on location. Zipping along at 75 MPH through downtown Knoxville on I40 is 20 over the posted speed limit. Yet the vast majority of drivers aren't pulled over because there really is no reason for that absurdly low of a speed limit. And very likely the LE in the area know this and don't enforce it as much.

But while speeding doesn't entail one will always injure others or damage property, it does increase the likelihood of it. Decreased reaction times, force exponentially multiplied in a collision, roadways not designed for higher rates of speed...there are several other factors to consider, but those are off the top of my head. And yes, there generally are safety studies done for the speed limits and it's not as an arbitrary number as you would believe. 15 MPH in a school zone for example. That's due to studies done for the reaction time of drivers if a child darts out in front of a car, the force of the car if it hits someone and for the pedestrian reaction time as well.

I was an accident investigator for 13 years and the number one cause of most of the accidents I investigated? Speed too fast for conditions. Or put in other terms, speed too fast for a driver to control said vehicle. Which isn't an "official" term, but is pretty much as accurate as I can make it.

On the contrary, you can point to places like Montana where the Interstates don't have speed limits. Or Germany on the Autobahn. But even in those places, there are limits in certain areas due to safety concerns and the need for drivers to slow down for conditional factors.
Click to expand...

Nobody is questioning the physics involved in reaction times, thus the higher likelihood of getting in an accident. The fact remains, however, that just as driving at dusk increases the likelihood of an accident while, yet, not making it likely that you will get in an accident, speeding increases the likelihood while, yet, not making an accident likely (in fact, driving at dusk makes it much more likely that one will get in an accident than does speeding).
 
#3,543
#3,543
SamRebel35 said:
Anyone that has ever taken a transportation engineering class will tell you that it is such a Voodoo science with so many approximations that absurdly conservative safety factors are added just so the PE can cover his arse in case there happens to be a horrific accident on the stretch of road that he designed. Just know that in most cases, if you're doing the speed limit, a more precise engineering approach would likely allow you to be going faster on that same stretch of road.
Click to expand...

It also takes into account probable weather conditions, material construction, coefficient of friction of said surface, safety equipment, superelevation (or lack thereof on older roads) and wear of the roadway over its lifespan.

While I agree the speeds are on the conservative side (sometimes very conservatively so) it also has other factors in making the ultimate decision than just an engineer covering his arse.
 
#3,545
#3,545
therealUT said:
Nobody is questioning the physics involved in reaction times, thus the higher likelihood of getting in an accident. The fact remains, however, that just as driving at dusk increases the likelihood of an accident while, yet, not making it likely that you will get in an accident, speeding increases the likelihood while, yet, not making an accident likely (in fact, driving at dusk makes it much more likely that one will get in an accident than does speeding).
Click to expand...

So compounding the factor of driving at dusk along with speed makes it even more likely?
 
#3,546
#3,546
Grand Vol said:
On the contrary, you can point to places like Montana where the Interstates don't have speed limits. Or Germany on the Autobahn. But even in those places, there are limits in certain areas due to safety concerns and the need for drivers to slow down for conditional factors.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, in Germany, you will get a ticket if you are just tooling along in the left lane. It is for passing, and the Germans all know this and respect it. Just like you do not cross the street if the red hand is up (red man in Europe)... even if there is no car coming for miles. They have a greater 'respect' for those nitnoid laws that many Americans so flippantly ignore.
 
#3,547
#3,547
SpaceCoastVol said:
As I understand it, in Germany, you will get a ticket if you are just tooling along in the left lane. It is for passing, and the Germans all know this and respect it. Just like you do not cross the street if the red hand is up (red man in Europe)... even if there is no car coming for miles. They have a greater 'respect' for those nitnoid laws that many Americans so flippantly ignore.
Click to expand...

No. Most of the Autobahn traffic is monitored by cameras these days and they mail you a nice ticket. The only time you really see a traffic cop is in the towns and cities.

OMG Cameras! Surveillance! Where's my tin foil?!?!?!?!
 
#3,548
#3,548
SamRebel35 said:
Anyone that has ever taken a transportation engineering class will tell you that it is such a Voodoo science
Click to expand...

Northwestern pioneered the traffic management field and their formulas have been proven time and time again and are accepted worldwide. It's a huge stretch to call it Voodoo science.
 
#3,549
#3,549
Grand Vol said:
So compounding the factor of driving at dusk along with speed makes it even more likely?
Click to expand...

Indeed, yet still highly unlikely. But, if the argument is that we should continue to attack speeding as we currently do because it makes it more likely that an accident will occur, then why not shut down roads during dusk? Probably because those who think safety takes precedence over liberty also think production takes precedence over safety...?
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top