JUDGE: Flashing headlights to warn of speedtrap protected under Constitution...

[tailfins]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-22/news/os-flashing-headlights-ruling-20120522_1_ryan-kintner-free-speech-headlights

[Nukeman]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-22/news/os-flashing-headlights-ruling-20120522_1_ryan-kintner-free-speech-headlightsAs it should be!! Speed traps are only for taxation through citation.. thats it!! period!!

[Abbey Marie]

You know, it's kinda scary that this was even at issue.

[Nukeman]

You know, it's kinda scary that this was even at issue.Yep.... The whole point of the "speed trap" is to get people to slow down, well guess what someone flashes their lights at me I slow down and look for the cop, so the desired response is achieved. Unfortunately for the local govt with out the fine!! That is the bigger issue here. If everyone tomorrow started to follow EVERY trafic law they would come up with new ones to cite you for!!!

[Mr. P]

I feel a divide with my fellow members. I support the police enforcement of laws. Perhaps if the charge were "Obstruction", which IMO it was, it would have stuck. Really, if you're speeding you're wrong regardless of the means used to catch you in the act on the public highway. Now, if this were an "illegal" set up of radar, I'd call for the court to ordered it stopped.

Bottom line, IMO, they charge didn't fit the offense. Just sayin

[ConHog]

I feel a divide with my fellow members. I support the police enforcement of laws. Perhaps if the charge were "Obstruction", which IMO it was, it would have stuck. Really, if you're speeding you're wrong regardless of the means used to catch you in the act on the public highway. Now, if this were an "illegal" set up of radar, I'd call for the court to ordered it stopped.

Bottom line, IMO, they charge didn't fit the offense. Just sayin

I agree with you . How would the board feel if say some guy set outside a Predator sting and warned sleazes that they were walking into a sting?

[Mr. P]

I agree with you . How would the board feel if say some guy set outside a Predator sting and warned sleazes that they were walking into a sting?

Bingo, baby! On the other hand, I think those stings we see on TV are "entrapment" for the most part. I'm sure it can be argued though.

[ConHog]

Bingo, baby! On the other hand, I think those stings we see on TV are "entrapment" for the most part. I'm sure it can be argued though.

Gunny? :laugh2:

[Nukeman]

I feel a divide with my fellow members. I support the police enforcement of laws. Perhaps if the charge were "Obstruction", which IMO it was, it would have stuck. Really, if you're speeding you're wrong regardless of the means used to catch you in the act on the public highway. Now, if this were an "illegal" set up of radar, I'd call for the court to ordered it stopped.

Bottom line, IMO, they charge didn't fit the offense. Just sayin


I agree with you . How would the board feel if say some guy set outside a Predator sting and warned sleazes that they were walking into a sting?Tell ya what when EVERY and I mean EVERY police officer out there goes EXACTLY the speed limit you can say that!!

When I am driving down the road and driving with traffic and a cop blows by us at at least 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit with NO repercussions that is flagrant flaunting of the law on their part ( and NO they weren't going on a call just cruising)!!!

When officers of the LAW follow that driving rule than and ONLY than should they be allowed to set up a trap or enforce!!!

[Mr. P]

Gunny? :laugh2:

Gunny? What? Same opinion? :dunno:

[ConHog]

Tell ya what when EVERY and I mean EVERY police officer out there goes EXACTLY the speed limit you can say that!!

When I am driving down the road and driving with traffic and a cop blows by us at at least 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit with NO repercussions that is flagrant flaunting of the law on their part ( and NO they weren't going on a call just cruising)!!!

When officers of the LAW follow that driving rule than and ONLY than should they be allowed to set up a trap or enforce!!!

FALSE.

What SHOULD happen is that those officers should be reprimanded or yes even fined for speeding when not in an emergency situation. That it NO NOWAY says that police in general shouldn't be enforcing speeding laws.

What's next , stop responding to DV calls because SOME cops beat their spouses?

[ConHog]

Gunny? What? Same opinion? :dunno:

I was just messing with you Mr P. He went absolutely ballistic at me in a couple of threads because I proved conclusively that To Catch a Predator was not police entrapment and he didn't like it.

You're NOTHING like that guy.

[DragonStryk72]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-22/news/os-flashing-headlights-ruling-20120522_1_ryan-kintner-free-speech-headlights

The fact they call it a "trap" pretty well states that it's entrapment. This isn't even about safety, but about collecting fines, because if it was purely about safety, then the person flashing their lights is accomplishing the same exact thing as the cops. This isn't like a crime like pehophilia, or elsewise, where another person's liberties and rights are being infringed. If this is purely about safety for drivers, then there's no problem, and if it's about the state getting more money from fines, then the government itself is committing a crime.

[ConHog]

The fact they call it a "trap" pretty well states that it's entrapment. This isn't even about safety, but about collecting fines, because if it was purely about safety, then the person flashing their lights is accomplishing the same exact thing as the cops. This isn't like a crime like pehophilia, or elsewise, where another person's liberties and rights are being infringed. If this is purely about safety for drivers, then there's no problem, and if it's about the state getting more money from fines, then the government itself is committing a crime.


I have a right not to be ran down by some speeding or drunk driver. I have a right to being safe on the highway. Otherwise why have cops on patrol at all. Just let them sit at the station until needed.

[DragonStryk72]

I have a right not to be ran down by some speeding or drunk driver. I have a right to being safe on the highway. Otherwise why have cops on patrol at all. Just let them sit at the station until needed.

And you are safe on the highway, despite almost every driver doing 10 over the limit, that or you're already dead and buried, which would make this discussion extremely awkward.

Again, if your safety were the issue, then the people flashing their headlights to warn others to slow down have accomplished the goal every bit as much as the cops, so what exactly is the problem? If the fines are the issue, then the cops are just flat out wrong.

[gabosaurus]

There aren't many speed traps in California due to low manpower. But if you get caught flashing your lights or using radar, they won't bust you for it. They will, however, get you for something else.
I have to doubt that traveling 10-20 miles over the speed limit is a protected right.

What is scary is how anti-police too many people are. It's like they have a given right to break any law that they personally dislike.
Personally, if I see someone leading police on a high speed chase that endangers other drivers, I am willing to look the other way while the kick the shit out of the guy. I think you lose your rights for being a lawbreaking asshole.

[ConHog]

And you are safe on the highway, despite almost every driver doing 10 over the limit, that or you're already dead and buried, which would make this discussion extremely awkward.

Again, if your safety were the issue, then the people flashing their headlights to warn others to slow down have accomplished the goal every bit as much as the cops, so what exactly is the problem? If the fines are the issue, then the cops are just flat out wrong.


Whatever man, in THIS country we punish those who break the law. In the case of traffic violations that punishment is a speeding ticket, not a headlight flash.

If your argument is that the speed limits aren't high enough, fine, otherwise what that number is set at is irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you just object to speed limits in general?

[ConHog]

There aren't many speed traps in California due to low manpower. But if you get caught flashing your lights or using radar, they won't bust you for it. They will, however, get you for something else.
I have to doubt that traveling 10-20 miles over the speed limit is a protected right.

What is scary is how anti-police too many people are. It's like they have a given right to break any law that they personally dislike.
Personally, if I see someone leading police on a high speed chase that endangers other drivers, I am willing to look the other way while the kick the shit out of the guy. I think you lose your rights for being a lawbreaking asshole.

You're the "worst" liberal I've ever seen. :laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

Whatever man, in THIS country we punish those who break the law. In the case of traffic violations that punishment is a speeding ticket, not a headlight flash.

If your argument is that the speed limits aren't high enough, fine, otherwise what that number is set at is irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you just object to speed limits in general?

Ah, so then it isn't about safety, it's about legality. In that case, the cops should be getting their badges and guns removed for entrapment. It's flat out called a trap, meaning it's purpose is to entrap.

[logroller]

I agree with you . How would the board feel if say some guy set outside a Predator sting and warned sleazes that they were walking into a sting?
I wouldn't like it; but then free speech was never about protecting speech that people like...quite the opposite in IMHO.

[Missileman]

Ah, so then it isn't about safety, it's about legality. In that case, the cops should be getting their badges and guns removed for entrapment. It's flat out called a trap, meaning it's purpose is to entrap.

The cops are not enticing drivers to speed, it's not entrapment.

[ConHog]

I wouldn't like it; but then free speech was never about protecting speech that people like...quite the opposite in IMHO.

Well established that free speech doesnt extend to endangering the public

[logroller]

Well established that free speech doesnt extend to endangering the public

Flashing ones headlights doesn't rise to the level of screaming fire in a crowded theater.

[ConHog]

Flashing ones headlights doesn't rise to the level of screaming fire in a crowded theater.

True. But thats not where the line id drawn.

[SassyLady]

There aren't many speed traps in California due to low manpower. But if you get caught flashing your lights or using radar, they won't bust you for it. They will, however, get you for something else.
I have to doubt that traveling 10-20 miles over the speed limit is a protected right.

What is scary is how anti-police too many people are. It's like they have a given right to break any law that they personally dislike.
Personally, if I see someone leading police on a high speed chase that endangers other drivers, I am willing to look the other way while the kick the shit out of the guy. I think you lose your rights for being a lawbreaking asshole.

OMG!!! Gabby and I agree on another point! Woot!

:clap:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gabosaurus again.

[logroller]

True. But thats not where the line id drawn.

Say I started a website that said where sobriety checkpoints were; would that be protected speech?

[DragonStryk72]

Well established that free speech doesnt extend to endangering the public

Then it's fine. The guy flashes the high beams, and the other driver slows down, thus safer. So why do you keep trying to say it's for safety when safety has been achieved?

[tailfins]

The cops are not enticing drivers to speed, it's not entrapment.

The cops don't act alone, but there is enticement with speed limits set to generate revenue, not safety. A safe speed limit is near the 85th percentile traffic speed.

[logroller]

The cops don't act alone, but there is enticement with speed limits set to generate revenue, not safety. A safe speed limit is near the 85th percentile traffic speed.
Kinda like partial nudity is more alluring.

[darin]

The cops don't act alone, but there is enticement with speed limits set to generate revenue, not safety. A safe speed limit is near the 85th percentile traffic speed.


Absolutely. When cities set artificially low speed limits they are causing the tickets to happen. In michigan cities are on record stating the purpose of their "speed enforcement" - REVENUE.



Lt. Gary Megge, head of the Michigan State Police Traffic Services Section, says one of the reasons for (illegally-low/artificially low speed limits and resulting citations) is the revenue..."

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/feeding-the-machine-sandbagging-on-speed-limits



Few thoughts after reading most replies:

We have the Law-thumpers. Those who beat the drum of "IT IS THE LAW!' and exhibit no mercy on violators. (Presumably unless its a law they dont like...different topic).

THEN we have the other group - the group who care first about 'safety'. I'm part of this group. Safety is vital. Speeding is NOT unsafe, or it IS unsafe based on the context. Cops in their speed traps portend to be working to enforce 'safe driving', yet they complain when that very result happens.

Try this, Cops - Sit on the side of the road with your lights going, or even just blatantly visible. That will cause folks to slow down - and since most Police Administrations worship the fallacy of "Speed Kills" (One of the biggest, sickest 'pranks' by money-grubbing municipalities across the nation is getting most of the population to believe the lie 'speed kills'. That slogan has allowed them to barge their way into MORE of taxpayers wallets...) their mission will be met. Folks will reduce speed.

Are the cops there to address the safety of the road - or at least, to control the speed of traffic? If so, the ONLY logical answer to this issue is "Thank you to flashing-lights guys! You are helping us achieve that goal!"

Are the cops there to PUNISH instead of correct? If so, the only logical answer would be putting offenders in jail.

Are the cops there to collect revenue? If so, they ticket folks who prevent them from scoring "donations" from the population.

Dated article - but the math/reasoning is sound.


Seven Major Myths of Speed and Speed Enforcement:

Speed Is a Major Cause of Accidents and Fatalities
Speed Enforcement Increases Safety
Slower Is Always Safer
Use of Radar Detectors Increases Speeds and Accidents
The Federal 55-mph Limit Saved Thousands of Lives
Speed Enforcement is Driven by Safety Concern
Lower Speed Limits Reduce Average Speeds and Accidents

http://www.motorists.org/ma/myths.html


Good reading:

http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speed-kills.html

(Problem is, those already brainwashed are unlikely to admit it)



http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/speedsci.html
...this analysis corroborates what most of us already know from experience: the safest thing to do is to go with the flow and screw the speed limit. Contrary to what the insurance industry wants us to believe, the increase in flow speed DOES NOT lead to proportional increases in death risk.


Based on the research; based on reason - Cops protesting others flashing their lights to warn of "revenue-traps" betray their intent; To take money from people otherwise likely conducting the operation of their car in a safe manner.

[ConHog]

Absolutely. When cities set artificially low speed limits they are causing the tickets to happen. In michigan cities are on record stating the purpose of their "speed enforcement" - REVENUE.



Few thoughts after reading most replies:

We have the Law-thumpers. Those who beat the drum of "IT IS THE LAW!' and exhibit no mercy on violators. (Presumably unless its a law they dont like...different topic).

THEN we have the other group - the group who care first about 'safety'. I'm part of this group. Safety is vital. Speeding is NOT unsafe, or it IS unsafe based on the context. Cops in their speed traps portend to be working to enforce 'safe driving', yet they complain when that very result happens.

Try this, Cops - Sit on the side of the road with your lights going, or even just blatantly visible. That will cause folks to slow down - and since most Police Administrations worship the fallacy of "Speed Kills" (One of the biggest, sickest 'pranks' by money-grubbing municipalities across the nation is getting most of the population to believe the lie 'speed kills'. That slogan has allowed them to barge their way into MORE of taxpayers wallets...) their mission will be met. Folks will reduce speed.

Are the cops there to address the safety of the road - or at least, to control the speed of traffic? If so, the ONLY logical answer to this issue is "Thank you to flashing-lights guys! You are helping us achieve that goal!"

Are the cops there to PUNISH instead of correct? If so, the only logical answer would be putting offenders in jail.

Are the cops there to collect revenue? If so, they ticket folks who prevent them from scoring "donations" from the population.

Dated article - but the math/reasoning is sound.



Good reading:

http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speed-kills.html

(Problem is, those already brainwashed are unlikely to admit it)

[/FONT][/COLOR]


Based on the research; based on reason - Cops protesting others flashing their lights to warn of "revenue-traps" betray their intent; To take money from people otherwise likely conducting the operation of their car in a safe manner.







Speed limits are speed limits. You don't get to arbitrarily ignore them under the guise of "this is a safe speed for me." What is a safe speed for YOU to be driving certainly may not be a safe speed for someone else to be driving. But the rules are meant to apply to all.

[gabosaurus]

The cops don't act alone, but there is enticement with speed limits set to generate revenue, not safety. A safe speed limit is near the 85th percentile traffic speed.

Where do you expect small rural towns to get their revenue? From the state and/or federal governments?
Some of you don't like raising taxes or traffic fines, but you expect city/county services.

I don't like having a bunch of nutcases running around with guns, but I can't arbitrarily decide to take them away from you.
Don't do the crime if you can do the time or pay the fine.

[darin]

Speed limits are speed limits. You don't get to arbitrarily ignore them under the guise of "this is a safe speed for me." What is a safe speed for YOU to be driving certainly may not be a safe speed for someone else to be driving. But the rules are meant to apply to all.


That's a different topic. Illegal speed limits are to be ignored.

And honestly, driving the safe speed IS THE LAW, regardless of the posted limit.

[logroller]

That's a different topic. Illegal speed limits are to be ignored.

And honestly, driving the safe speed IS THE LAW, regardless of the posted limit.
Not regardless that I'm aware; safe for conditions, up to the maximum posted speed limit is what I've heard. Even admonished of That by a California court.

But so long as we're bashing the unjust enforcement of laws; I've an example.

Thrres this highway that goes through town and it pretty regularly backs up at this one intersection. This can be frustrating, and people had taken to passing on the shoulder, which was paved, in order to make a right hand turn. Now I know within 150ft this is legal, but people were passing like a quarter mile of stopped traffic. So they posted a sign that said no passing on shoulder. Well I'm driving down this street at 5 pm on a Sunday; there was almost no traffic. I pass one car to make a right hand turn and cop pulls me over and I say it's legal to pass in the last 150 ft...his response was, not there its not. One fucking car; the sign was a quarter mile back and I know why that sign was placed there...because the problem was people passing way back there. To add insult to injury the ticket I received was failure to obey a posted sign, a $250 fine. There was a guy who passed on a dirt shoulder on a highway, which is way more likely to cause An accident, and he was fined $115 for passing on the shoulder. Now that, to me, is a miscarriage of justice. Every speeding ticket I ever received, I deserved; I was haulin ass. Had quite a run on speeding tickets, 3 in 7 months. 70 in a 55, 82 in a 65 and 95 in a 70. Even got sent a friendly warning from the DMV. I've since kept my speed down.

[ConHog]

That's a different topic. Illegal speed limits are to be ignored.

And honestly, driving the safe speed IS THE LAW, regardless of the posted limit.

You've been misinformed if you've been told that the legal speed limit is EVER higher than the posted limit Darin.

[darin]

You've been misinformed if you've been told that the legal speed limit is EVER higher than the posted limit Darin.

Two things - first, I'm saying the SAFE speed limit is often faster than the posted speed limit. Secondly, I just showed you a link in Michigan where going faster than the posted speed limit was legal; because the posted speed limit was illegal. Did you read that piece?

Finally, spend a few minutes on google researching the law in different states; I'm quite sure California has 'basic speeding' laws; stating if you're pulled over and cited you can have the ticket dismissed (meaning your speed did not violate the law) if you can show going slower would have been unsafe/impeding.


I'm VERY VERY VERY informed on most things car-related...especially traffic law related. You should know that by now. :)

[gabosaurus]

Finally, spend a few minutes on google researching the law in different states; I'm quite sure California has 'basic speeding' laws; stating if you're pulled over and cited you can have the ticket dismissed (meaning your speed did not violate the law) if you can show going slower would have been unsafe/impeding.


Incorrect. I know those who have tried that in both California and Texas, both charged with exceeding speed limits on freeways. Both were told that speed limits are set by local or state jurisdictions and can not be challenged on the basis of "keeping up with the traffic."
Darin, I know you are an expert on vehicular matters. But obviously you have a few things to learn about traffic court.

[sundaydriver]

Most states have pretty much the same Basic driving law. The posted speed limit is the maximum speed allowed under good weather and road conditions. Of course a clear sunny day with little traffic on a nice road dosn't mean I can exceed the posted speed limit because it makes me feel safer.

Pennsylvania traffic site:

) Following the flow of traffic is a valid excuse for speeding.
Myth. Not only might you annoy the traffic cop by stating your reason for breaking the law, you’re also admitting guilt. Surprisingly, when we polled our users, many said moving with the flow of traffic won’t land you a speeding ticket. But they couldn’t be more wrong.
　
Fact or Myth:
1) Driving the posted speed limit won’t get you a traffic ticket.
Myth. The posted speed limit is the maximum legal speed during ideal road conditions. If it’s pouring rain, icy out or the roads are covered in slush, going the speed limit might not be safe. Therefore you could get a traffic ticket for driving the exact speed posted on the side of the road.

[darin]

Incorrect. I know those who have tried that in both California and Texas, both charged with exceeding speed limits on freeways. Both were told that speed limits are set by local or state jurisdictions and can not be challenged on the basis of "keeping up with the traffic."
Darin, I know you are an expert on vehicular matters. But obviously you have a few things to learn about traffic court.

Anecdotal evidence? Both were told? First off, passive voice sucks. Secondly, that's not evidence worth a debate.

I know THREE people ticketed for impeding traffic while driving at the posted speed limit. See? Easy.



here's the point to my participation in this thread, at least to those who want to argue a side-point "the posted limit ALWAYS to be obeyed!": The 'posted speed limit' isn't necessarily the LEGAL limit for how fast cars can operate because context dictates.

Minimum speed limits, for example are NOT to be obeyed when weather or other conditions warrant.

You folk can't have it both ways - either ANY limitation on speed, or lack thereof, is mandatory or it is not. I vote, based on preponderance of the evidence it is NOT. Further, as an aside, those who abide 'strictly' by the speed limit are dangerous; they are sheep behind the wheel trying to use their 'strict adherence' as a definition of 'safe'.

[ConHog]

Anecdotal evidence? Both were told? First off, passive voice sucks. Secondly, that's not evidence worth a debate.

I know THREE people ticketed for impeding traffic while driving at the posted speed limit. See? Easy.



here's the point to my participation in this thread, at least to those who want to argue a side-point "the posted limit ALWAYS to be obeyed!": The 'posted speed limit' isn't necessarily the LEGAL limit for how fast cars can operate because context dictates.

Minimum speed limits, for example are NOT to be obeyed when weather or other conditions warrant.

You folk can't have it both ways - either ANY limitation on speed, or lack thereof, is mandatory or it is not. I vote, based on preponderance of the evidence it is NOT. Further, as an aside, those who abide 'strictly' by the speed limit are dangerous; they are sheep behind the wheel trying to use their 'strict adherence' as a definition of 'safe'.


You're mixing points. no one has said that sometimes weather dictates that the posted speed limit isn't higher than what is going to be allowed. What we have said is that the speed limit can NEVER be HIGHER than the posted limit. And that is absolute fact.

[logroller]

You're mixing points. no one has said that sometimes weather dictates that the posted speed limit isn't higher than what is going to be allowed. What we have said is that the speed limit can NEVER be HIGHER than the posted limit. And that is absolute fact.

My car isn't limited to the posted speed.

What about tornado conditions? safe for conditions might be as fast as my chariot can go.:lol:

[Nukeman]

Speed limits are speed limits. You don't get to arbitrarily ignore them under the guise of "this is a safe speed for me." What is a safe speed for YOU to be driving certainly may not be a safe speed for someone else to be driving. But the rules are meant to apply to all.


You're mixing points. no one has said that sometimes weather dictates that the posted speed limit isn't higher than what is going to be allowed. What we have said is that the speed limit can NEVER be HIGHER than the posted limit. And that is absolute fact.

Yet we continue down the same path of MOST on duty officers ignoring the posted speed limit while driving!! Why is that?? Why are they allowed to IGNORE this law?? I would also pose the question to you of "why is the enforcement of this up to the discretion of the officer"?? Why does the officer get to pick and choose who will and will not receive a speeding ticket?? If as you say it is black and white why is there wiggle room on EVERY ticket????

I really would like to hear your explanation for these questions!!

[ConHog]

Yet we continue down the same path of MOST on duty officers ignoring the posted speed limit while driving!! Why is that?? Why are they allowed to IGNORE this law?? I would also pose the question to you of "why is the enforcement of this up to the discretion of the officer"?? Why does the officer get to pick and choose who will and will not receive a speeding ticket?? If as you say it is black and white why is there wiggle room on EVERY ticket????

I really would like to hear your explanation for these questions!!

If you will recall earlier in the thread i said that imo police who vjolwte traffic laws in a non emergency should be ticketed or even fired.

Sadly quite few cops are abusive to does that mean we shouldnt have do.estic violence laws?

Dont worry soon everyones car will report them for speeding and s ticket will automatically be issued taking the subjectivness youre worried about out of the equation

[Nukeman]

If you will recall earlier in the thread i said that imo police who vjolwte traffic laws in a non emergency should be ticketed or even fired.

Sadly quite few cops are abusive to does that mean we shouldnt have do.estic violence laws?

Dont worry soon everyones car will report them for speeding and s ticket will automatically be issued taking the subjectivness youre worried about out of the equation
Well since we aren't discussing domestic violence than that is a moot point now isn't it!?!?!? I still don't understand and you still haven't answered the question why the descretion to write or not write a ticket for a moving violation is left up to the officer!??!? If it's a strict law that needs full enforcement than the officers would be left out of the decision making. Its not like they have the ability to say "oh you commited murder?? well since he needed killing it was ok". You can't say a "law is the law" and then give discretion to the officer to determine when and when not to enforce. or do you think otherwise!??
:poke:

[ConHog]

Well since we aren't discussing domestic violence than that is a moot point now isn't it!?!?!? I still don't understand and you still haven't answered the question why the descretion to write or not write a ticket for a moving violation is left up to the officer!??!? If it's a strict law that needs full enforcement than the officers would be left out of the decision making. Its not like they have the ability to say "oh you commited murder?? well since he needed killing it was ok". You can't say a "law is the law" and then give discretion to the officer to determine when and when not to enforce. or do you think otherwise!??
:poke:

Fair enough, I believe that every person caught speeding should be ticketed.

[Nukeman]

Fair enough, I believe that every person caught speeding should be ticketed.Well since it's such an arbitrary enforcement dependent upon the officers mood or teperment than that makes most tickets either fraudulent or illegal.. If I'm caught doing 65 in a 60 zone on Monday because I was alone on the road yet on Tuesday I run the same speed but with a group of cars including a police cruiser that makes it a shit law plain and simple and to argue otherwise is disingenius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i don't understand how you and other supporters can't admit that it is almost entirely for revenue, if it was for "safety" as you and others claim than EVERYONE would receive a ticket!!!!!!!

[ConHog]

Well since it's such an arbitrary enforcement dependent upon the officers mood or teperment than that makes most tickets either fraudulent or illegal.. If I'm caught doing 65 in a 60 zone on Monday because I was alone on the road yet on Tuesday I run the same speed but with a group of cars including a police cruiser that makes it a shit law plain and simple and to argue otherwise is disingenius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i don't understand how you and other supporters can't admit that it is almost entirely for revenue, if it was for "safety" as you and others claim than EVERYONE would receive a ticket!!!!!!!

Incorrect. IT doesn't make the ticket you received fraudulent or illegal. Your ass just got lucky that you didn't also get a ticket on those other days.

Human error in not writing tickets EVERY time doesn't mean tickets are fraudulent though, good grief.

[Nukeman]

Incorrect. IT doesn't make the ticket you received fraudulent or illegal. Your ass just got lucky that you didn't also get a ticket on those other days.

Human error in not writing tickets EVERY time doesn't mean tickets are fraudulent though, good grief.Ohh BULLSHIT!!!!!! If the ability to write or NOT write a ticket is left up to the discretion of the officer than it is fradulent... My ass didn't "get lucky" it is more like the officer got lucky thats why he wasn't writing tickets.

once again why is it left up to the officer. after all a "law is a law". If the law was meant to be enforced EVERY TIME than there would be no discretion involved!!!!!!!!!!!

[ConHog]

Ohh BULLSHIT!!!!!! If the ability to write or NOT write a ticket is left up to the discretion of the officer than it is fradulent... My ass didn't "get lucky" it is more like the officer got lucky thats why he wasn't writing tickets.

once again why is it left up to the officer. after all a "law is a law". If the law was meant to be enforced EVERY TIME than there would be no discretion involved!!!!!!!!!!!

I already agreed that it shouldn't be up to the officer, EVERY person caught speeding should be ticketed. The fact that they aren't though does NOT make the tickets that are issued either fraudulent NOR illegal.

[Nukeman]

I already agreed that it shouldn't be up to the officer, EVERY person caught speeding should be ticketed. The fact that they aren't though does NOT make the tickets that are issued either fraudulent NOR illegal.If the issuence of the ticket is arbitray than it is a fraudulent ticket. Are you telling me that if a police officer issues a ticket to me and than pulls over a big breasted woman and lets her off, that my ticket is not fradulent based on my not having big knockers!!! Thats the problem, as long as they are arbitray dependent upon the whims of the officer than they are fraudulent!!!!!!! If there is no rhyme or reason to the issuing of the tickets than they should be deemed un-enforcable!!!!

[ConHog]

If the issue of the ticket is abitray than it is a fraudulent ticket. Are you telling me that if a police officer issues a ticket to me and than pulls over a big breasted woman andlets her off, that my ticket is not fradulent based on my not haveing big knockers!!! Thats the problem, as long as they are arbitray dependent upon the whims of the officer than they are fraudulent!!!!!!! If ther is no rhyme or rythem to the issue of the tickets than they should be deemed un-enforcable!!!!

That is EXACTLY what I'm telling you. The officer's failure to give the big boobed girl a ticket has NO bearing on the validity of the ticket he gave you.


Try that shit in court and see how it works out. :lol:

[gabosaurus]

Sorry Nukeman, but that is total BS logic. Every time a police officer pulls you over, he has to radio in a report of why he stopped you. If he chooses not to ticket you, then he has to file a report on why. The whole "police office gives women with big boobs a pass" thing is a TV event.

dmp's logic is even more sorry and suspect. The instances I presented to you were more than "anecdotal." They happened to close friends and relatives who directly related the instances to me. If you try that "flow of traffic" thing with a real cop, he is going to give you a ticket for being an asshole.

[Dilloduck]

If the issuence of the ticket is arbitray than it is a fraudulent ticket. Are you telling me that if a police officer issues a ticket to me and than pulls over a big breasted woman and lets her off, that my ticket is not fradulent based on my not having big knockers!!! Thats the problem, as long as they are arbitray dependent upon the whims of the officer than they are fraudulent!!!!!!! If there is no rhyme or reason to the issuing of the tickets than they should be deemed un-enforcable!!!!

Cops word against yours----you lose.

[Nell's Room]

I am pleasantly surprised to learn that Americans do the same as we do. We flash our headlights to warn of a cop car up ahead, and the cops know this, so they have become rather crafty, hiding their cars in bushes so they are becoming harder and harder to see.

I don't like the fact that people speed, as it is reckless and irresponsible, but most people who get a speeding fine are only going less than 10ks over the limit, and there are many more crimes the police could be wasting their time on - but they choose to spend hours and hours out with a speed camera. Can't imagine why that might be...ka-ching!