On 8/2/2014 12:30 PM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
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?



Oh my, he's even jealous of tuner cars

On 8/2/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote:
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

He couldn't see in your truck, Duh! That's why you got stopped. There's
legal limits on windshield and front side window tinting.

--
"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

On 8/2/2014 10:43 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/2/2014 12:30 PM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
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?



Oh my, he's even jealous of tuner cars

Prolly not. That model plane sounding exhaust is annoying to most adults.

--
"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

On 8/2/14 12:43 PM, KC wrote:



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





Oh my, he's even jealous of tuner cars

Especially when I am sitting in my little green sportscar with the tan
leather seats and the 300+ hp water-cooled flat six with four overhead
cams...

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:13:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 8/2/14 12:43 PM, KC wrote:



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





Oh my, he's even jealous of tuner cars

Especially when I am sitting in my little green sportscar with the tan
leather seats and the 300+ hp water-cooled flat six with four overhead
cams...

===

Your imaginary car nicely compliments your imaginary boats. Have you
enrolled in another creative writing class?

F*O*A*D wrote:
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.

You just have to look at the bad driving to see drivers are not improving.
Here in the land of immigrants who never drove before arriving here, it is
especially bad. I have Pinoy friends who even joke about their cultures
bad.

wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:13:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Especially when I am sitting in my little green sportscar with the tan
leather seats and the 300+ hp water-cooled flat six with four overhead
cams...


insert tiny dick joke here ;-)

Quiet exhaust system. 😄

--
Posted from my iPhone

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:03:30 -0400, KC wrote:

This was clipped from a local racing forum, I have no reason to doubt
it's validity although I didn't get to check it out...

snip
The Massachusetts State Police and the Department of Transportation
today announced that Troop E of the State Police will roll numerous
extra patrols on the Massachusetts Turnpike from Friday through Monday
as part of a multi-state effort to enforce traffic laws and interdict
dangerous drivers.
Massachusetts and 14 other states tomorrow will kick off the “I-90/94
Challenge” on Interstates 90 and 94 across the United States. Here,
Troop E, which is responsible for patrolling the Turnpike (Route 90)
from Boston to the New York line, will conduct enforcement efforts
focusing on distracted and impaired driving, excessive speed, seatbelt
use, motorcycle violations, and defective equipment on and unsafe
driving of large trucks and buses. Troop E will utilize marked,
semi-marked, low profile, and unmarked patrol vehicles.
In addition to normal staffing levels, additional troopers will be added
to every shift throughout the 96-hour period to conduct saturation
patrols throughout the length of the Turnpike. The road patrols will be
complemented by patrols run by members of the Troop E Community Action
Team and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit.
/snip

Be careful out there, looks like it's open season or commuters this
weekend

Hope they catch a pot full.

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.

And, at least in Maryland, they've not decreased the number of cell phone users weaving around.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:36:18 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:13:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 8/2/14 12:43 PM, KC wrote:



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





Oh my, he's even jealous of tuner cars

Especially when I am sitting in my little green sportscar with the tan
leather seats and the 300+ hp water-cooled flat six with four overhead
cams...

===

Your imaginary car nicely compliments your imaginary boats. Have you
enrolled in another creative writing class?

I took route 4 from the beltway to its end on Thursday. Today I came back. Passed three cell phone
users paying little attention to what was going on. Didn't see any 'tuners' causing a bit of a
problem.

Lots of wild imagination around Huntingtown.