A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 20th 05, 11:21 PM
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Furious George" > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Furious George" > wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > > >
> > > > > Nuff said!
> > > >
> > > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > > 75-80mph"
> > > >
> > > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> > > one.
> > > >
> > > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > > principles?
> > >
> > > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including

> the
> > > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you

> want
> > > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to

> whatever
> > > you want.

> >
> > We all have the right to use the roads.

>
> Says you. When the government closes the road for repaving, are they
> violating the rights of everyone.


Don't be dense. A road closed for improvement is a reasonable limitation
on our freedom to travel it, because traveling it while there are
workers on it would be impractical.

>
> > We have a duty to do so in a
> > manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> > manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor

> vehicle
> > can cause.
> >
> > Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to

>
> > have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A

> victim
> > can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless

> behaviour,
> > and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> > *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
> >
> >
> > Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in

>
> > question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> > incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors

>
> > than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit),

> there
> > is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the

> posted
> > limit) as a form of endangerment.

>
> Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis for
> declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same thing.
> If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use the
> facility.


A government is not a private facility, is it?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Ads
  #12  
Old May 20th 05, 11:22 PM
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Furious George" > wrote:

> > You mean the public facility that our tax dollars pay for and

> maintain?
> > Not the same thing at all.

>
> Yes exactly. The public paid for the roads so the public makes the
> rules. If you don't like the rules build your own road.


So it would be okay with you if a new rule was passed where anyone who
spoke out against the government while standing on the sidewalk were
arrested and thrown in jail without trial.

Public makes the rules, right?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
  #13  
Old May 21st 05, 12:52 AM
L Sternn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:05:54 -0700, "Bob Flaminio" >
wrote:

>Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00
>in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of
>around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front
>of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next.
>
>The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
>first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
>this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that he was
>just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another tough day at
>work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands of other cars on
>the freeway. Now he's into the state for hundreds of dollars, not to
>mention the future insurance costs. That's food out of his family's
>mouths; clothes off their backs. And for what? So Joe Cop could make his
>quota this month?
>


He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every once
in a while.

If you speed, you know you're taking a risk. The solution is to
manage that risk and if you wish to, work to raise or abolish speed
limits.

Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing.

>(Judy and Carl, here's a pre-emptive STFU for you.)
>
>* yes, I realize that 99% of the readers will have no clue where this
>is.


I'm gonna take a wild guess and say California?
  #14  
Old May 21st 05, 01:45 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

> He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every once
> in a while.


Ticky tacky rules that define ordinary, reasonable behavior as illegal,
sparsely and selectively enforced is not good for the respect of law or
for the long term health of a nation.

> If you speed, you know you're taking a risk. The solution is to
> manage that risk and if you wish to, work to raise or abolish speed
> limits.


People have been working towards those aims for decades. Most people have
simply given up and just drive the speed they feel comfortable at.

> Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing.


usenet is but one medium to get the word out.


  #15  
Old May 21st 05, 02:24 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

L Sternn wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:05:54 -0700, "Bob Flaminio" >
> wrote:


>>Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00
>>in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of
>>around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front
>>of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next.
>>
>>The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
>>first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
>>this hapless commuter.


> He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every once
> in a while.


Which means that the moral of the story is to attempt to cause a multi
car pile up if this happens to you. That way, you don't get a speeding
ticket and everyone is safer since legal behavior is by definition safer
than illegal behavior ...
>
> If you speed, you know you're taking a risk.


Yes, going with the flow is riskier than attempting to cause a multi car
pileup. The law says so and therefore it is.

> Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing.


Not true, it gets people like you to respond
  #16  
Old May 21st 05, 03:06 AM
The Real Bev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Furious George wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Furious George wrote:
> > >
> > > Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis for
> > > declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same thing.
> > > If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use the
> > > facility.

> >
> > You mean the public facility that our tax dollars pay for and maintain?
> > Not the same thing at all.

>
> Yes exactly. The public paid for the roads so the public makes the
> rules. If you don't like the rules build your own road.


Do you know one single member of the public who wanted the speed limit to be
55? How about 65? How about 75? Tell me exactly how we, the motoring
public, can arrange to have speed limits set to something approximating the
speed that most people travel.

--
Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
"Let them all go to hell, except Cave 76"
-- Mel Brooks
  #17  
Old May 21st 05, 03:39 AM
Anthony Giorgianni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yet the will of the people says something entirely different. Why are you
> not objecting to the fact that there is a obvious disconnected between
> law and the will of the people in this nation?



That raises an interesting question, Brent.

Is the fact that many or even most motorists are exceeding a given speed
limit enough to conclude that they think the speed limit should be higher?
I'm wondering if anyone has actually studied this or done a survey. I mean I
think I can safety drive 80 mph, but I don't think everyone is capable of
safely driving at 80 mph - especially not teenagers, maybe some elderly
people with reduced abilities. So I wouldn't approve of raising the speed
limit to 80 in many places where a lot of people drive that fast. I wonder
if the majority of fast drivers feel the same way or if they generally think
speed limits should be raised. Do you know if anyone has actually done a
survey?


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.




  #18  
Old May 21st 05, 04:01 AM
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Brent P wrote:
> In article >, L Sternn

wrote:
>
> > He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every

once
> > in a while.

>
> Ticky tacky rules that define ordinary, reasonable behavior as

illegal,
> sparsely and selectively enforced is not good for the respect of law

or
> for the long term health of a nation.
>
> > If you speed, you know you're taking a risk. The solution is to
> > manage that risk and if you wish to, work to raise or abolish speed
> > limits.

>
> People have been working towards those aims for decades. Most people

have
> simply given up and just drive the speed they feel comfortable at.


<snip>

Yes true, unfortunately their "speed they feel..." is modified by the
risk of a ticket. While the flow is usually in the posted plus 10%
(sometimes a bit higher), the true 85% speed would be some higher than
that minus the posted or minus enforcement. I know I would be higher
than the the current flow on most roads were it not for ticket danger.

Harry K

  #19  
Old May 21st 05, 04:08 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> Is the fact that many or even most motorists are exceeding a given speed
> limit enough to conclude that they think the speed limit should be higher?
> I'm wondering if anyone has actually studied this or done a survey. I mean I
> think I can safety drive 80 mph, but I don't think everyone is capable of
> safely driving at 80 mph - especially not teenagers, maybe some elderly
> people with reduced abilities.


My question is why so many people think that everyone has to drive at
the speed limit? Why aren't they free to drive 5 to 10 mph below it?

If the speed limit was posted at 85 mph, then people who are capable of
safely driving at that speed can drive legally. Those who can't are
free to to legally drive slower.

When you think about it this way, it takes away the reason to keep speed
limits low because of below average vehicles/drivers.
  #20  
Old May 21st 05, 04:23 AM
Anthony Giorgianni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The law must be different in Canada.

In the U.S., there is no requirement that there be a victim for one to obey
the law. Use of the roads as a driver is a matter of license in this
country. A driver's obligations on the road goes beyond just safety. We have
strong environmental requirements for vehicles, for example. In this
country, driving an unregistered, uninsured vehicle may in fact be safe. But
motorists face legal obligations in those areas nonetheless..

But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even
presidents bow down to the law. Because of the rule of law, no one from the
government can simply take us away in the middle of the night. It's what
gives us our most basic protections. So for Americans, the duty to follow
the law - whether on the roads or elsewhere - is not so much for safety or
anything as it is to assure us that nobody ... not the president, the cop,
the judge, the millionaire, the TV star, nor the biggest guy or the smallest
guy can take away our basic freedoms. It's kind of ironic in a way - we see
laws as limiting our freedoms while at the same time as guaranteeing our
freedoms.

The other ironic thing is that the judicial branch in this country doesn't
have the guns or army or nuclear weapons of the executive branch. Its only
power is derived from our willingness to accept the bang of the gavel, to
accept the necessity that we acquiesce to the rules that we set for
ourselves as a society, even though no one agrees with every one of them all
of the time. And it's for one very good reason above all else: The law can't
guarantee our freedom if we take the position that we don't have to abide by
any rule we don't agree with. When a cop pulls us over for speeding, he is
not only enforcing someone idea's of safety (or as some say here, raising
revenue), he is, most important, saying that the respect for the law is the
crucial thing. He is saying that for the same reason you can't drive 80 in a
55, I can't take out my gun and shoot you because I don't like your skin
color or religion or because I'm simply wearing a badge. Our willingness to
accept this system - even if it means that we have to drive a little slower
or pay taxes we don't like - is what makes the U.S. great. I thought is was
pretty much the same thing in Canada.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Furious George" > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > >
> > > > Nuff said!
> > >
> > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around

> > 75-80mph"
> > >
> > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no

> > one.
> > >
> > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > principles?

> >
> > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> > you want.

>
> We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a
> manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle
> can cause.
>
> Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
> have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim
> can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour,
> and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>
>
> Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
> question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
> than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there
> is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted
> limit) as a form of endangerment.
>
> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
> rest of us.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LIDAR Trial this Week [email protected] Driving 17 April 9th 06 02:44 AM
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM
PATROL CAR CRASHES AFTER CHP PURSUIT IN PALO ALTO Garth Almgren Driving 2 December 24th 04 09:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.