Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:24:03 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>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

Wow - did you have to be bred in a laboratory to be that stupid?

L Sternn wrote:

> Wow - did you have to be bred in a laboratory to be that stupid?

No, natural conception is sufficient, in most cases, to employ as well
as comprehend the use of sarcasm as a form of written expression. Note
that I said *most cases*.

"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.
>
Sorry, you may have the right to use the roads on foot/using a bicycle, but
in CA, where the violation occurred, it is a REVOKABLE PRIVILEGE to drive a
motor vehicle on the roads. Get enough negligent driver points, the license
can be suspended, get enough beyond that, and it can be revoked.

> 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.
>
The written law is the California Basic Speed Law--Palo Alto is in CA. The
driver in question, if he insisted on speeding, should have been smart
enough to be on the lookout for cops, or even better, probably should have
reduced speed.

>
> 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.
>
And since there are insufficient cops on the road to cite all the violators,
they probably have to pick just one--probably either the lead car or the
fastest car.

Again, if the drivers insist on speeding, they also should accept that they
may very well be held accountable for their speed violations.

> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
> rest of us.
>
No, actually it's speed at your own risk, and accept responsibility for the
speed violations if and when pulled over and subsequently cited for them. It
really is as simple as that.

The speed limit signs, regardless of what popular opinion may think about
them being "underposted", still govern the maximum LEGAL speed of the road
in tandem with the California Basic Speed Law.

"L Sternn" > wrote in message
...

[snip...]

> Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40.
>
> What's yours?
>
So here's a valid question. If the "underposted" speed limit was raised to
60, would you *still* continue to do 60?

Or would you do 70 or 80 because *that* speed limit is considered
"underposted"?

Conversely, if you would actually do 70 or 80 if the speed limit was raised
to 60, then it's actually in the best interest to leave the speed limit at
40 to keep the speed violations at a lower speed.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:18:16 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>"L Sternn" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>[snip...]
>
>> Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40.
>>
>> What's yours?
>>
>So here's a valid question. If the "underposted" speed limit was raised to
>60, would you *still* continue to do 60?
>

To be honest, that depends on the road.

On the street I normally commute to work on, I wouldn't do more than
60. Currenlty, I average about 50, traffic permitting.

On the open highway, the limit would have to be 120 or so before I
failed to exceed it, and I would think that would mainly be because of
the limits of my personal car.

>Or would you do 70 or 80 because *that* speed limit is considered
>"underposted"?


Contrary to popular belief, there are speed limits on certain parts of
the autobahn. I had no problem staying below those speed limis
although if I ever go back there I'm going to make damn sure I don't
rent an Opel.

>
>Conversely, if you would actually do 70 or 80 if the speed limit was raised
>to 60, then it's actually in the best interest to leave the speed limit at
>40 to keep the speed violations at a lower speed.
>

You neglect common sense.

On the road that I commute to work on, anything over 60 would be
dangerous IMO.

But the speed limit is only 40.

If the speed limit was 180, I would probably go about 60 - rougly 10
mph faster than I do it now.

On Sat, 21 May 2005, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> So here's a valid question. If the "underposted" speed limit was raised
> to 60, would you *still* continue to do 60? Or would you do 70 or 80
> because *that* speed limit is considered "underposted"?

There's no generic answer possible to this question, for it's entirely
contingent upon how severely the original speed limit of 40mph was
underposted. It's possible 60 would be entirely appropriate and that'd be
the prevailing speed of traffic. It's possible 60 would still be
underposted, in which case the prevailing speed would still be over the
posted limit.

The "speed-crazed drivers just add 10 or 20 mph to whatever's on the sign"
fallacy comes from timid little halfway corrections to underposted limits.
When *proper* speed limits are posted, compliance is almost always
excellent. One of a great many examples is the stretch of I-25 south of
DTC. For many years, it was posted at 55, and the prevailing speed of
traffic was between 70 and 80. Shortly after the NMSL was rescinded, this
stretch of highway was reposted at 75. Prevailing speed of traffic is
still between 70 and 80.

DS

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And how is this incident any more egregious than the thousands of
> other speeing tickets that are issued each day?

It was the timing that appalled me more than anything. From freeway
onramp to turning on his lights was less than 15 seconds. He literally
pulled over the first car he came upon. If the guy had been doing 90, or
weaving in and out of traffic (both of which are common on I-280), I
wouldn't've bothered posting. But the victim was just driving along in
the rightmost lane doing about 75, the same speed that everyone else was
doing. And for some reason that earns him an entanglement with law
enforcement.

--
Bob

I don't think there should be a referendum on speed limits. I simply am
questioning the argument that a large number of people driving faster than
the speed limit necessary means that a large number of people support
raising the speed limit. I am only asking whether anyone knows if anyone has
actually scientifically polled drivers anywhere to see what they actually
say.

It there is in fact overwhelming support for raising limits to the 85th
percentile or eliminating them altogether, it seems to me that would happen,
given the political process in the country,. I'm trying to figure out what
is going on. It seems to me that the possibilities are

1) Although many people drive faster than the limits, they in fact do not
support raising the limits.
2) They don't care enough to make it a political issue or run for office
themselves.


I did a quick web search, I don't see anyone who has done a survey of driver
attitudes on speed limits. Does anyone know of one?


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you view of the world is that we should ALL be held back to the
> level of the least capable among us. If we allow people on the road
> who are not capable of driving over 55 then we should ALL be limited
> to 55 eh? No thank you.
>
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I ABSOLUTELY think the speed limit
should be set for the least capable. If you raise the limits to the levels
of the most capable, you're basically saying: "I know lots of people won't
actually be safe driving that fast, but let em crash and cause mayhem if
they're not smart enough to slow down. We want to best drivers to be able to
go as fast as they can."

There should be a minimum requirement for getting a license, and the speed
limit and all the driving rules should be set so those minimally-qualified
people can drive safely without posing a danger to everyone else. It may be
inconvenient for some, but so are accidents, injuries and deaths. I don't
know where a lot of folks here drive, but where I drive (Connecticut and
Long Island) I see lots of people barely making it the way things are now. I
bet raising the speed limit on LI's Southern State Parkway from 55 to 85
would have catastrophic consequences. From what I see, I think most drivers
are terrible drivers. And the idea that we should let them go as fast as
they want so we can accommodate good drivers is just scary.

But the issue is not what I think. My question is the fact that many people
drive fast evidence in and of itself that there is public support for
raising the speed limit, as has been suggested here. In other words, I'm not
sure it's correct to conclude that the public votes for higher speed limits
every day by breaking current limits. I mean it MAY be the case. But it may
equally be the case that the public would say "I want to drive this fast,
but I don't want a lot other people driving this fast." I really would be
interested in seeing any surveys on this (not that I think speed limits
should be set by popular vote.)

--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:45:37 -0500,
> (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.
>
> Don't blame the cops, blame your legislators.
> You do vote, don't you?

I blame both. Cops support low speed limits and other 'tool' laws.

And yes I vote. But none of this is neither here nor there. My point
stands regardless.

>>> 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.

> Correction: people have been whining about it for decades.

It only took 20 years to get the temporary NMSL repealed.

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

> Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40.
> What's yours?

I've been one of those people subject to selective enforcement.

>>> Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing.
>>
>>usenet is but one medium to get the word out.

> LMAO

Such a sad state affairs. People like you deserve tryanny.