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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto
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? (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. -- Bob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message ... (the posted speed limit is 65). Nuff said! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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? -- 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." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > -- > 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." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. > 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. > > 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." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Furious George wrote:
> 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. You're either a troll or a poor old scared geezer no longer capable of keeping up with traffic |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 07:10 AM |
PATROL CAR CRASHES AFTER CHP PURSUIT IN PALO ALTO | Garth Almgren | Driving | 2 | December 24th 04 08:39 PM |