Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2014
Posts: 74
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

True North wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 21:59:04 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:52:41 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:

Poor L'il Snottie doesn't realize that effective law enforcement is a good thing.
One of the better uses of our tax dollars.



Shut up stupid...he wasnt even talking to you.



Ever notice how dickhead donnies replies all look just like his Masters (krause the slug) ??

I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.

How is the "law" ineffective?
  #12   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,972
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On 8/2/2014 12:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl
wrote:

I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.

How is the "law" ineffective?


Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.


Wow.


  #14   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2014
Posts: 3,524
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On 8/2/14 12:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl
wrote:

I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.

How is the "law" ineffective?


Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.



Your libertarianism gives me the giggles.
  #15   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,756
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:15:08 UTC-3, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 08:33:47 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:



On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:43:10 -0400, wrote:




On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl


wrote:




I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.


How is the "law" ineffective?




Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.




===




You could argue that the laws don't make drivers better in the sense


that their skills improve, but the laws certainly help keep them in


check. I think you'd have a lot more reckless behavior on the roads


if not for traffic enforcement.




It is easy to argue that most accidents are caused by distracted

driving, poor skills and intoxication. Most enforcement seems to be

aimed at speeders, simply because that is far easier to detect and

prosecute. In most places, state cops are just "speeder maids".

A cop sitting in the bushes with a radar gun is not really

contributing to safety that much.



Most of the "laws" themselves are about equipment and emissions, not

drivers.



In a lot of places "traffic enforcement" is actually used as a means

to conduct unconstitutional searches, involving more than a little

profiling.

It seems to be fairly productive, generating lots of non-traffic

related arrests but a lot of innocent people are harassed in the

process.




If someone is going to run into me I'd rather they did it at the posted speed limit or lower, not 20 km above it.
Up here you get hit with a 'stunting' charge if you're caught speeding at 50km above posted speed limits. (approx 30 mph)
Usually the 1st fine is in the $2400.00 range
http://autos.ca.msn.com/specials/roa...4319270&page=7


  #17   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2014
Posts: 3,524
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On 8/2/14 10:55 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 07:35:14 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:15:08 UTC-3, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 08:33:47 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:



On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:43:10 -0400,
wrote:



On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl

wrote:



I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.

How is the "law" ineffective?



Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.



===



You could argue that the laws don't make drivers better in the sense

that their skills improve, but the laws certainly help keep them in

check. I think you'd have a lot more reckless behavior on the roads

if not for traffic enforcement.



It is easy to argue that most accidents are caused by distracted

driving, poor skills and intoxication. Most enforcement seems to be

aimed at speeders, simply because that is far easier to detect and

prosecute. In most places, state cops are just "speeder maids".

A cop sitting in the bushes with a radar gun is not really

contributing to safety that much.



Most of the "laws" themselves are about equipment and emissions, not

drivers.



In a lot of places "traffic enforcement" is actually used as a means

to conduct unconstitutional searches, involving more than a little

profiling.

It seems to be fairly productive, generating lots of non-traffic

related arrests but a lot of innocent people are harassed in the

process.




If someone is going to run into me I'd rather they did it at the posted speed limit or lower, not 20 km above it.
Up here you get hit with a 'stunting' charge if you're caught speeding at 50km above posted speed limits. (approx 30 mph)
Usually the 1st fine is in the $2400.00 range
http://autos.ca.msn.com/specials/roa...4319270&page=7



The question is who is more likely to hit you in the first place.
My money is on a drunk or someone texting.
A cop in the bushes with a radar gun probably won't catch either of
them if they are within 10 MPH of the speed limit.



Down here on Route 4 (you know it well), the most dangerous drivers
after drunks are the teen-aged boys in their little muffler-less Hondas
that mommy and daddy bought them. They drive recklessly and usually get
themselves pulled over by the county's finest.
  #18   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Mar 2014
Posts: 811
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On 8/2/2014 10:12 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 8/2/14 10:55 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 07:35:14 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:15:08 UTC-3, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 08:33:47 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:



On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:43:10 -0400,
wrote:



On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl

wrote:



I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more
effective.

How is the "law" ineffective?



Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.



===



You could argue that the laws don't make drivers better in the sense

that their skills improve, but the laws certainly help keep them in

check. I think you'd have a lot more reckless behavior on the roads

if not for traffic enforcement.



It is easy to argue that most accidents are caused by distracted

driving, poor skills and intoxication. Most enforcement seems to be

aimed at speeders, simply because that is far easier to detect and

prosecute. In most places, state cops are just "speeder maids".

A cop sitting in the bushes with a radar gun is not really

contributing to safety that much.



Most of the "laws" themselves are about equipment and emissions, not

drivers.



In a lot of places "traffic enforcement" is actually used as a means

to conduct unconstitutional searches, involving more than a little

profiling.

It seems to be fairly productive, generating lots of non-traffic

related arrests but a lot of innocent people are harassed in the

process.



If someone is going to run into me I'd rather they did it at the
posted speed limit or lower, not 20 km above it.
Up here you get hit with a 'stunting' charge if you're caught
speeding at 50km above posted speed limits. (approx 30 mph)
Usually the 1st fine is in the $2400.00 range
http://autos.ca.msn.com/specials/roa...4319270&page=7



The question is who is more likely to hit you in the first place.
My money is on a drunk or someone texting.
A cop in the bushes with a radar gun probably won't catch either of
them if they are within 10 MPH of the speed limit.



Down here on Route 4 (you know it well), the most dangerous drivers
after drunks are the teen-aged boys in their little muffler-less Hondas
that mommy and daddy bought them. They drive recklessly and usually get
themselves pulled over by the county's finest


I thought you were the county's finest, no?


--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson
  #19   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Mar 2014
Posts: 811
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On 8/2/2014 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:10:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 10:15:08 -0400,
wrote:

In a lot of places "traffic enforcement" is actually used as a means
to conduct unconstitutional searches, involving more than a little
profiling.
It seems to be fairly productive, generating lots of non-traffic
related arrests but a lot of innocent people are harassed in the
process.


===

I agree with you on that. LCSO seems to be particularly adept in
that department. I don't know about Estero but the cops in the Cape
seem to catch a fair number of DWIs and red light violators. That's
all good in my opinion. I wish they'd do more about noisy motorcycles
and late night racing on the bridges however. There are also way too
many LEO resources wasted on manatee enforcement in the river.


Down here LCSO seems to be more interested in crime than traffic and
that is a good thing.
The problem with most of these efforts is it gets judged on production
more than effectiveness.
In that regard Maryland was much worse than anything I have seen here
in Florida. They used to put 20 cops in one spot of the beltway and
stop 20 cars, write them up as fast as they could, then stop 20 more.
Everyone was speeding before they got to the speed trap and resumed
speeding as soon as they passed it (knowing all the cops were there).
It was purely revenue. The cops were ranked by how many tickets they
could write in a day. They didn't do much else. Working a trap like
this could get you 3 or 4 dozen in an 8 hour shift.
They would have about half of the ticket filled out before you were
caught. They just filled in the time, your info and the speed but it
was usually 11 over, no matter how fast you were going.
Show up in court and that was automatically reduced to 9 over (half
the fine, half the points) if you would just pay it.
Pure production at it's finest, not much about safety tho.

Where I hang out in my boat, I seldom see any law enforcement. They
are scared to come back here.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Local%20Knowledge.jpg

It seems that Maryland cops are well trained to work the system and
produce revenue. Wonder where they got their training?

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson
  #20   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
KC KC is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,563
Default Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.

On 8/2/2014 10:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 08:33:47 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:43:10 -0400,
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl
wrote:

I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.
How is the "law" ineffective?

Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.


===

You could argue that the laws don't make drivers better in the sense
that their skills improve, but the laws certainly help keep them in
check. I think you'd have a lot more reckless behavior on the roads
if not for traffic enforcement.


It is easy to argue that most accidents are caused by distracted
driving, poor skills and intoxication. Most enforcement seems to be
aimed at speeders, simply because that is far easier to detect and
prosecute. In most places, state cops are just "speeder maids".
A cop sitting in the bushes with a radar gun is not really
contributing to safety that much.

Most of the "laws" themselves are about equipment and emissions, not
drivers.

In a lot of places "traffic enforcement" is actually used as a means
to conduct unconstitutional searches, involving more than a little
profiling.
It seems to be fairly productive, generating lots of non-traffic
related arrests but a lot of innocent people are harassed in the
process.


I am quite aware of how the Eastern Mass Cops operate, from the little
corrupt forces, right up to the State level... I got profiled all
right.. I know he can't see in my truck, but he sure saw my CT plates
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One of JustHate's buds? X ` Man[_3_] General 13 May 25th 12 12:51 PM
Too good to pass up... X ` Man General 92 October 24th 11 01:01 AM
Your 'buds' at Big Oil Harry  General 5 July 29th 10 07:29 PM
New Pass sailmonstermomma General 4 March 26th 08 04:48 PM
OT--Here's one bill that will never pass NOYB General 86 July 28th 05 12:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017