Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.
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) ?? |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.
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. |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:35:34 PM UTC-4, 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. OOOOOOOOOHH...Im so scared. Tick...Tick...Tick..... The law won't save your ass. You need a Mexican Massage. |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dick! Seriously, read this... Pass it to your buds up there.
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
One of JustHate's buds? | General | |||
Too good to pass up... | General | |||
Your 'buds' at Big Oil | General | |||
New Pass | General | |||
OT--Here's one bill that will never pass | General |