NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles

Greg Houston wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

>>I recently got a ticket on a 40 mph 2-lanes-each-way road on the edge of
>>town with the cop coming from the opposite direction...
>>...Got it reduced to defective equip and a Saturday of driving school. I'm
>>still negative points. The judge tried to convince me to just let it
>>stand since I was so good on points.
>
>
> This is another case of "trust the machine no matter what" that is becoming inherent in
> our society. What did they consider the "defective equipment" to be, the speedometer?
> Also, can you get an insurance discount for going to a driving school? That would
> certainly make everything worthwhile.

I guess the implication is the speedometer, though it wasn't stated.
From what I saw in the courtroom with previous cases and conversations
at work, that seems to have become *very* routine, at least in my area -
you buy down the charge from speeding (a moving violation) to "defective
equipment" by agreeing to go top driving school - I think every case in
the court room that day was handled that way. Driving schools appear to
have become quite a racket.

I can't help but wonder how long before the insurance companies start
looking at that since, from there perspective, they are being routinely
"cheated" out of raising rates and cancelling policies, and it messes up
their actuarials.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

041120 1520 - Nomen Nescio posted:

> The moment you sit in your car you are entering the police state. You
> don't even have to have the car in motion! You can get cited for drunk
> driving even if the car is parked in your own driveway!
>

It is explained, in the Yale Law Journal of 1931: "The law has drawn a
distinction between the ordinary use of the highway for travel, and its use
for purposes of private gain. A vehicle on the road for the former purpose
is there as of 'right'; one using it in the latter manner has only a
'privilege' of use."

The Constitutional Law section of American Jurisprudence explains the right:
"While the freedom to travel within the United States has been held to be a
basic right under the Federal Constitution which is independent of a
specific provision therein, the right of locomotion has also been held to be
a part of the 'liberty' guaranteed by the due process clauses."

Justice Epes, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals of
Virginia, explained the right quite clearly and frankly: "The right of a
citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which
he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess
property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so
doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the
existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage
or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and
ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like
the privilege of moving a house in the street, or transporting persons or
property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at
will." Justice Griffith, delivering an opinion of the Supreme Court of
Mississippi, declared, upon reviewing the opinion of Justice Epes of
Virginia concerning this most valuable of rights: "There seems to be no
dissent among the authorities on this proposition."

You may well be asking: "Why do I believe that my driving my automobile is a
privilege granted by the State, and not a right?"

In Europe, in the days of the feudal society, the King granted the
privileges as the sovereign, and the subject accepted these privileges at
his whim. When this country withdrew from Britain, the feudal society
notion was rejected, and it was written into the Constitution of the United
States that no titles of Nobility shall be granted. We had graduated from a
feudal society to a contractual society. The recognition that the laboring
individual had as much property in his labor as the propertied individual
had in his money or land was hard fought, but was eventually won in the
courts of this country. Taints of the feudal society are still noted in
legal jargon where the distinction between an employer and the employee are
noted as master and servant.

Also recognized by law, and the courts, is the distinction between the
natural, and the artificial person; the natural person being an inhabitant
of the State, in this country, and the artificial person being a
corporation, or other entity, created by government, or the State. It has
been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, and other courts,
that the State itself, and the federal government, are artificial persons,
created to perform certain functions.

The State has blurred the distinction between the natural and artificial
person to the point of the individual being duped into believing that he has
no right to drive his automobile. The question has been posed to
individuals: "If the State sent to you a notice declaring that your
"privilege" to drive your automobile has been revoked, what would you do?"
The answer was a resounding: "I would drive it anyway." Driving an
automobile to work, or play, is as natural a function to most Americans now
that to deprive an American of this right would be tantamount to taking his
plate of food from him at the table.

It also may well be asked: "How did we lose this right?" Early in the
American automobile history, most Americans did not often see an automobile
in town. Only the wealthy could afford one, and when it was driven into the
town the noise scared the horses, and sometimes the driver of such a
contraption, being of the "upper classes", and looking down upon the "lower
classes", would become careless in the operation of his motor car to the
point of rudeness, putting at risk the life and limb of the walking
population. The town populace would retaliate with laws regulating the use
of the motor car in the town, such as the laws which declared that the motor
car would have to be rendered inoperable at the village limits, and a horse
team, and driver, would have to be hired to tow the vehicle into, or
through, the village. As the motor car became more widely used, it became
recognized as a common mode of transportation by the individual. Because of
the rudeness of some of the drivers, regulations were propounded that a
plate be affixed to the vehicle so that it could be identified, and its
owner brought to account in case of a personal injury accident. Other
individuals would hire a motor car, and driver, to take them places, and
businesses were established to this end. Trucks were built to move
materials over the roadways, and the vehicles and drivers were "licensed"
for this purpose.

A "license", in law, is a permission granted by a "higher authority" to
perform some specific function. Licensing to drive an automobile is
permission granted by the State to drive. The State does not have a program
for those who wish to drive an automobile as a basic right. All are lumped
into the category of "artificial person".

Such a program could include a course on the Rules of the Road; driving a
car; and upon completion, a Certificate of Competency that the individual
recognizes that there are others on the road who are just as concerned about
a safe trip. There are few who would deny that some rights could be
regulated so that all may benefit from the exercise of them; such as the old
argument that "Your right to thrust your fist forward ends where my face
begins."

With the distinction blurred between the natural person and the artificial
person, the State can withdraw the "privilege" at will, or many "conditions"
can be placed upon the use of the 'privilege", such as have been proposed by
some legislators that your rights be waived and the individual must submit
to alcohol tests, and searches and seizures; and that child support payments
must be up to date or the drivers "license" will be revoked. If the
individual is "licensed" by the State, his "privilege" may well be revoked
at the whim of the State. This is where the inhabitants of the States
should rise up against this feudal system, and demand that the right to
drive an automobile be recognized.

By now you can see how the right to drive an automobile has been relegated
to the status of "privilege"; mostly through neglect, and apathy of the
individual. Now most individuals actually believe that driving an
automobile is a "privilege" granted by the State, as they go about seeking
"permission" from the State to exercise this right.

041120 1520 - Nomen Nescio posted:

> The moment you sit in your car you are entering the police state. You
> don't even have to have the car in motion! You can get cited for drunk
> driving even if the car is parked in your own driveway!
>

It is explained, in the Yale Law Journal of 1931: "The law has drawn a
distinction between the ordinary use of the highway for travel, and its use
for purposes of private gain. A vehicle on the road for the former purpose
is there as of 'right'; one using it in the latter manner has only a
'privilege' of use."

The Constitutional Law section of American Jurisprudence explains the right:
"While the freedom to travel within the United States has been held to be a
basic right under the Federal Constitution which is independent of a
specific provision therein, the right of locomotion has also been held to be
a part of the 'liberty' guaranteed by the due process clauses."

Justice Epes, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals of
Virginia, explained the right quite clearly and frankly: "The right of a
citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which
he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess
property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so
doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the
existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage
or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and
ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like
the privilege of moving a house in the street, or transporting persons or
property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at
will." Justice Griffith, delivering an opinion of the Supreme Court of
Mississippi, declared, upon reviewing the opinion of Justice Epes of
Virginia concerning this most valuable of rights: "There seems to be no
dissent among the authorities on this proposition."

You may well be asking: "Why do I believe that my driving my automobile is a
privilege granted by the State, and not a right?"

In Europe, in the days of the feudal society, the King granted the
privileges as the sovereign, and the subject accepted these privileges at
his whim. When this country withdrew from Britain, the feudal society
notion was rejected, and it was written into the Constitution of the United
States that no titles of Nobility shall be granted. We had graduated from a
feudal society to a contractual society. The recognition that the laboring
individual had as much property in his labor as the propertied individual
had in his money or land was hard fought, but was eventually won in the
courts of this country. Taints of the feudal society are still noted in
legal jargon where the distinction between an employer and the employee are
noted as master and servant.

Also recognized by law, and the courts, is the distinction between the
natural, and the artificial person; the natural person being an inhabitant
of the State, in this country, and the artificial person being a
corporation, or other entity, created by government, or the State. It has
been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, and other courts,
that the State itself, and the federal government, are artificial persons,
created to perform certain functions.

The State has blurred the distinction between the natural and artificial
person to the point of the individual being duped into believing that he has
no right to drive his automobile. The question has been posed to
individuals: "If the State sent to you a notice declaring that your
"privilege" to drive your automobile has been revoked, what would you do?"
The answer was a resounding: "I would drive it anyway." Driving an
automobile to work, or play, is as natural a function to most Americans now
that to deprive an American of this right would be tantamount to taking his
plate of food from him at the table.

It also may well be asked: "How did we lose this right?" Early in the
American automobile history, most Americans did not often see an automobile
in town. Only the wealthy could afford one, and when it was driven into the
town the noise scared the horses, and sometimes the driver of such a
contraption, being of the "upper classes", and looking down upon the "lower
classes", would become careless in the operation of his motor car to the
point of rudeness, putting at risk the life and limb of the walking
population. The town populace would retaliate with laws regulating the use
of the motor car in the town, such as the laws which declared that the motor
car would have to be rendered inoperable at the village limits, and a horse
team, and driver, would have to be hired to tow the vehicle into, or
through, the village. As the motor car became more widely used, it became
recognized as a common mode of transportation by the individual. Because of
the rudeness of some of the drivers, regulations were propounded that a
plate be affixed to the vehicle so that it could be identified, and its
owner brought to account in case of a personal injury accident. Other
individuals would hire a motor car, and driver, to take them places, and
businesses were established to this end. Trucks were built to move
materials over the roadways, and the vehicles and drivers were "licensed"
for this purpose.

A "license", in law, is a permission granted by a "higher authority" to
perform some specific function. Licensing to drive an automobile is
permission granted by the State to drive. The State does not have a program
for those who wish to drive an automobile as a basic right. All are lumped
into the category of "artificial person".

Such a program could include a course on the Rules of the Road; driving a
car; and upon completion, a Certificate of Competency that the individual
recognizes that there are others on the road who are just as concerned about
a safe trip. There are few who would deny that some rights could be
regulated so that all may benefit from the exercise of them; such as the old
argument that "Your right to thrust your fist forward ends where my face
begins."

With the distinction blurred between the natural person and the artificial
person, the State can withdraw the "privilege" at will, or many "conditions"
can be placed upon the use of the 'privilege", such as have been proposed by
some legislators that your rights be waived and the individual must submit
to alcohol tests, and searches and seizures; and that child support payments
must be up to date or the drivers "license" will be revoked. If the
individual is "licensed" by the State, his "privilege" may well be revoked
at the whim of the State. This is where the inhabitants of the States
should rise up against this feudal system, and demand that the right to
drive an automobile be recognized.

By now you can see how the right to drive an automobile has been relegated
to the status of "privilege"; mostly through neglect, and apathy of the
individual. Now most individuals actually believe that driving an
automobile is a "privilege" granted by the State, as they go about seeking
"permission" from the State to exercise this right.

indago wrote:

> "While the freedom to travel within the United States has been
> held to be a basic right under the Federal Constitution which
> is independent of a specific provision therein, the right of
> locomotion has also been held to be a part of the 'liberty'
> guaranteed by the due process clauses."
>
> .....
>
> By now you can see how the right to drive an automobile has
> been relegated to the status of "privilege"; mostly through
> neglect, and apathy of the individual. Now most individuals
> actually believe that driving an automobile is a "privilege"
> granted by the State, as they go about seeking "permission"
> from the State to exercise this right.

The more extreme form of this basic right to locomotion can be seen in
the No-Fly-List, the existance of which was first denied. The exact
"owner", manager or maintainer of the list is still disputed, and no
explanation of the legal basis of the list has ever been put forward
(nor any remedy for the fact that it operates completely outside the
concept of "due process").

With on-star like technolgy already here, and the vehicle data
recorder about to become manditory, the "no-drive-list" and the
mechanism to impliment it can't be far off.

indago wrote:

> "While the freedom to travel within the United States has been
> held to be a basic right under the Federal Constitution which
> is independent of a specific provision therein, the right of
> locomotion has also been held to be a part of the 'liberty'
> guaranteed by the due process clauses."
>
> .....
>
> By now you can see how the right to drive an automobile has
> been relegated to the status of "privilege"; mostly through
> neglect, and apathy of the individual. Now most individuals
> actually believe that driving an automobile is a "privilege"
> granted by the State, as they go about seeking "permission"
> from the State to exercise this right.

The more extreme form of this basic right to locomotion can be seen in
the No-Fly-List, the existance of which was first denied. The exact
"owner", manager or maintainer of the list is still disputed, and no
explanation of the legal basis of the list has ever been put forward
(nor any remedy for the fact that it operates completely outside the
concept of "due process").

With on-star like technolgy already here, and the vehicle data
recorder about to become manditory, the "no-drive-list" and the
mechanism to impliment it can't be far off.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...

> I can't help but wonder how long before the insurance companies start
> looking at that since, from there perspective, they are being routinely
> "cheated" out of raising rates and cancelling policies, and it messes up
> their actuarials.
>

Bill, Bill Bill, haven't you yet realized that the insurance companies
already know
that there is no connection between accident rates and a moderate number of
traffic tickets, espically speeding tickets?

Running red lights, running stop signs, reckless driving, these are tickets
that
actually effect insurance rates. The problem is that most jurisdictions
lump all
speeding tickets in with the other ones and as a result, the insurance
companies
know their actuarials are screwed by this.

Ted

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...

> I can't help but wonder how long before the insurance companies start
> looking at that since, from there perspective, they are being routinely
> "cheated" out of raising rates and cancelling policies, and it messes up
> their actuarials.
>

Bill, Bill Bill, haven't you yet realized that the insurance companies
already know
that there is no connection between accident rates and a moderate number of
traffic tickets, espically speeding tickets?

Running red lights, running stop signs, reckless driving, these are tickets
that
actually effect insurance rates. The problem is that most jurisdictions
lump all
speeding tickets in with the other ones and as a result, the insurance
companies
know their actuarials are screwed by this.

Ted

"Dan Larsen" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Why is it, that most people think cops have nothing else on
their
> minds, except writing traffic tickets?? You clowns have no idea what
it's
> like to wear that uniform, and get painted with this moronicly broad
brush.

No we don't. And we suggest that if a cop doesen't like getting painted
with
this moronicaly broad brush, that he educates his fellow officers to start
chasing
bad guys and quit running speed traps.

I recall years ago working the night shift at a hotel, the security at the
hotel
was a firm staffed by ex-police officers, all pretty nice guys. They all
had
police radios that worked on the same frequencies the local police used,
and had an agreement with the local police to call for backup. They used
this quite a lot because besides watching the hotel they watched a number of
car lots that regularly had thieves trying to steal cars, and stereos out of
cars, etc.

I can remember a number of times hearing the radio transmissions myself
of cops who were in the car lots pulling down perps that these security
guys had caught, and the cops were calling for backup (due to the perp
being on drugs or whatever) and the backup was - you guessed it -
too ****ing busy writing speeding tickets on the highway to bother
coming down helping out their fellow officers.

So no I really don't have much respect for cops that regularly write out
speeding tickets. If the cops really wanted to reduce speeding they would
park a clearly marked police car in a highly visible section of the highway
and sit there for a few hours with the bubble-gum lights turning on the
top. Anything other than this is just a revenue generator.

> Grow up and smell the coffee. YOU are NOT the center of the Universe,
and the
> world is NOT out to get you, . . . . especially your local law enforcement
> officers, (unless you live in Maybury, RFD, and Andy's deputy is your next
door

No, cops aren't out to get me, in particular. But they are out for
themselves.
In the county seat of the county I work in, the police station and the
traffic court
share a building and share offices. (fortunately I only have to drive
through
there every once in a great while) Revenues from the traffic tickets go
right
into the police department and court budgets. Clearly, there is an
unhealthy
incentive to write speeding tickets and make them stick.

By contrast, in the city that I live in (which is larger) since the streets
are very
controlled by lights and are busy, there is less opportunity for the city
cops to write speeding tickets, so it appears the department isn't so bent
on just writing tickets, and actually takes the time to chase bad guys.
In the entire decade I've lived there I've only
got 2 tickets from the city cops in my city, one for going though a stop
sign,
and the other for speeding. And at the court date for the speeding ticket
the
cop stated they wern't going to support it and it was dropped. By the way,
the court there and the police station are separate, and revenue from
tickets
goes into the general fund and isn't earmarked for them. As a consequence,
I have a lot more respect for the city cops. And also, in general, whenever
there's some crime or other on the news, the county cops are not mentioned,
only state and city.

Ted

"Dan Larsen" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Why is it, that most people think cops have nothing else on
their
> minds, except writing traffic tickets?? You clowns have no idea what
it's
> like to wear that uniform, and get painted with this moronicly broad
brush.

No we don't. And we suggest that if a cop doesen't like getting painted
with
this moronicaly broad brush, that he educates his fellow officers to start
chasing
bad guys and quit running speed traps.

I recall years ago working the night shift at a hotel, the security at the
hotel
was a firm staffed by ex-police officers, all pretty nice guys. They all
had
police radios that worked on the same frequencies the local police used,
and had an agreement with the local police to call for backup. They used
this quite a lot because besides watching the hotel they watched a number of
car lots that regularly had thieves trying to steal cars, and stereos out of
cars, etc.

I can remember a number of times hearing the radio transmissions myself
of cops who were in the car lots pulling down perps that these security
guys had caught, and the cops were calling for backup (due to the perp
being on drugs or whatever) and the backup was - you guessed it -
too ****ing busy writing speeding tickets on the highway to bother
coming down helping out their fellow officers.

So no I really don't have much respect for cops that regularly write out
speeding tickets. If the cops really wanted to reduce speeding they would
park a clearly marked police car in a highly visible section of the highway
and sit there for a few hours with the bubble-gum lights turning on the
top. Anything other than this is just a revenue generator.

> Grow up and smell the coffee. YOU are NOT the center of the Universe,
and the
> world is NOT out to get you, . . . . especially your local law enforcement
> officers, (unless you live in Maybury, RFD, and Andy's deputy is your next
door

No, cops aren't out to get me, in particular. But they are out for
themselves.
In the county seat of the county I work in, the police station and the
traffic court
share a building and share offices. (fortunately I only have to drive
through
there every once in a great while) Revenues from the traffic tickets go
right
into the police department and court budgets. Clearly, there is an
unhealthy
incentive to write speeding tickets and make them stick.

By contrast, in the city that I live in (which is larger) since the streets
are very
controlled by lights and are busy, there is less opportunity for the city
cops to write speeding tickets, so it appears the department isn't so bent
on just writing tickets, and actually takes the time to chase bad guys.
In the entire decade I've lived there I've only
got 2 tickets from the city cops in my city, one for going though a stop
sign,
and the other for speeding. And at the court date for the speeding ticket
the
cop stated they wern't going to support it and it was dropped. By the way,
the court there and the police station are separate, and revenue from
tickets
goes into the general fund and isn't earmarked for them. As a consequence,
I have a lot more respect for the city cops. And also, in general, whenever
there's some crime or other on the news, the county cops are not mentioned,
only state and city.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I can't help but wonder how long before the insurance companies start
>>looking at that since, from there perspective, they are being routinely
>>"cheated" out of raising rates and cancelling policies, and it messes up
>>their actuarials.
>>
>
>
> Bill, Bill Bill, haven't you yet realized that the insurance companies
> already know
> that there is no connection between accident rates and a moderate number of
> traffic tickets, espically speeding tickets?

Do you have any data to support this? I've always wondered what the
correlation is between citations people get and accidents, but I've
never seen any data on this.


Matt