Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

In article >, Shawn Hearn wrote:

> Driving the speed limit would have absolved that guy from the ticket.
> Sorry, I do not feel any sympathy for drivers who get speeding tickets
> in that kind of situation, where the speed limit is presumably well
> known and clearly posted. The guy chose to drive over the limit and he
> got caught doing it. That's life. Deal.

I don't understand this attitude. It's as if people prefer living under
arbitary pulled out of the ass rules.

Let me give you just one event when I chose to follow the speed limit
yesterday on an interstate. The calumet expressway (AKA bishop ford) is
under construction. Before the lane actually closes the speed limit goes
to the construction zone 45mph. normal speed of traffic is more like
75mph. When this lane closure on a weekend doesn't cause a backup (like
yesterday) traffic doesn't slow at all. (no work being done) So I slow to
45mph because of the photo radar they have out now. I've got people on my
ass. darting around me, damn near hitting me. Totally and completely
unsafe. But here I am, with a choice... obey the law or endanger myself.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:25:10 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
d> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Let's assume you're right, and that everyone who violates the speed
> limit wants the speed limits to stay artificially low. It follows that
> every one of these drivers wants to receive speeding tickets, points
> on their license, and steep increases in their insurance premiums (or
> outright cancellation).
>
> Now, how likely do you suppose that is?

You do know there is a fair number of people who believe the speed
limit is for the other guy but not them. Look at all the supporters of
'tool' laws who call someone like me paranoid. They feel that these laws
are good because the cops will never use them on people like themselves,
good citizens. Only on criminals that deserve it. In other words, they
trust the cops. They've never been the 'other guy'. Usually it takes some
negative experiences being the 'other guy' before they change their
minds.

Paul wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:59:25 GMT, Anthony Giorgianni , said the following
> in rec.autos.driving...
>
> > Paul, in addition to making your arguments here, why don't you start a
> > letter writing campaign or run for office on a platform of clearing up
> > government?
>
> Run for office?? I'm not *that* sleazy!
>
> > Change doesn't come easily. It often takes hard work. But people do vote in
> > this country. They throw out the government all the time because they are
> > unhappy with this or that.
>
> You mean like we the sheeple did in 1994 in exchanging ghetto welfare for
> corporate welfare? ROTFLMAO!!!!

There are more poor people than rich people. If they don't vote, whose fault
is that? Do you actually want people who can't even support themselves to
choose our system of governance?

--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
Non illegitimi carborundum.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:15:34 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> <devils advocate>
>>
>> Brent, you know that this is unfair. The will of the people is only a
>> portion of what matters. If it were all that mattered, we would still
>> have slavery.
>
><other devil's advocate>
>
>If the above were true, wouldn't Douglass
>have beaten Lincoln?
>
>Bernard

1) Well you beat me at history, I don't recall what platform Douglas
ran on. Based on your comment, may I assume he was pro slavery?

2) However, my comment was based on what the people in the South
wanted. If the will of the people were all that mattered, the SOUTH
would still have slavery while the North would not.

3) Actual point - there are lots of things that have changed because
of laws in spite of what the public wanted. Some of them have been
for the good.

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?
>
>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.

Ever heard the phrase "pay attention"? See, if you had, paid
attention that is, you would know that raising the speed limit has no
effect on the average speed. One can conclude, assuming one has
intelligence, that raising the speed limit does not result in many, if
any, people who drive above the current limit increasing their speed
once said limit is changed.

>>Only when the people we elect to govern actually do thier
>>job and govern, instead of take polls, see which way the wind is
>>blowing or sent it back to the people though ballot measures on
>>issues that should be decided in the legislature.
>
> Clinton isn't president anymore, and that doesn't happen nearly as
> much anymore. Whether you like Bush or not, you have to agree that he
> actually tries to change the minds of people as opposed to changing
> his opinion to fit what he perceives people want.

I meant more locally, at the state level. I think things in state
government have much more to do with the day to day way
you live your life, like roads, land use desisions, etc..

We have a phrase for slow moving (non) desision making
here. We call it the "Seattle process" meaning each possible
opinion must be given weight and attention, no matter
what the obvious greater good would be.

Bernard

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...

> Let me give you just one event when I chose to follow the speed limit
> yesterday on an interstate. The calumet expressway (AKA bishop ford) is
> under construction. Before the lane actually closes the speed limit goes
> to the construction zone 45mph. normal speed of traffic is more like
> 75mph. When this lane closure on a weekend doesn't cause a backup (like
> yesterday) traffic doesn't slow at all. (no work being done) So I slow to
> 45mph because of the photo radar they have out now.

I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and
it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable!

Bernard

In article >,
Anthony Giorgianni > wrote:
>
>But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even
>presidents bow down to the law.

Even the Governor of Pennsylvania violates the speed limit.

>Because of the rule of law, no one from the
>government can simply take us away in the middle of the night.

Unless they pass a law allowing them to do so (USA PATRIOT and
follow-ons). Or just do so and "lose the paperwork".

>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.

As Andrew Jackson once said "Justice Marshall has made his decision.
Now let him enforce it". So much for presidents respect for rule of
law.

No, you're just using "rule of law" as a stick to attempt to beat
those who disagree with current laws. When Governor Rendell violates
the speed limit and gets away with it because he's governor, THAT
weakens "rule of law". Same when a cop does the same. When laws are
passed which exempt government officials from laws, that makes a
mockery of "rule of law". But when a private citizen violates the
law, for any reason or no reason, with no expectation of immunity if
he's caught, that fails to affect "rule of law" one way or another.

Only those in power can violate "rule of law", either by issuing a
decree that all must follow (the full phrase is "rule of law, not of
men") on pain of punishment, or by failing to follow the laws
themselves.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <amAje.293$4F1.162@trnddc06>,
Bernard farquart > wrote:
>
>"DTJ" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> <devils advocate>
>>
>> Brent, you know that this is unfair. The will of the people is only a
>> portion of what matters. If it were all that mattered, we would still
>> have slavery.
>
><other devil's advocate>
>
>If the above were true, wouldn't Douglass
>have beaten Lincoln?

He did.



--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>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.

Sure. The tools look much better from the handle end than the
business end.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.