I've a question for our police officers..

[RAdams]

Originally Posted by Rayner

Why put a V8 in the SS instead of a 3-cylinder engine? It would still look cool with a small engine, wouldn't it?

... then put some fart cans on it and it would sound SWEEEEEEET!

[JProberts]

Originally Posted by Rayner

Nope. It's just that when I got home from the service, my first ticket came at such a bogus time. I was so ticked off by it that I researched it on the net and found in bold letters on hundreds of sites -- "DO NOT JUST 'PAY THE FINE'....THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO AND YOU'RE ONLY HURTING YOURSELF."

The reason I have two lawyers is that one handles tickets further north than the other one *and* will physically represent you in a JP court while the other keeps further south and handles JP tickets differently.

Cool, I was just being a douche bag,wasn't really serious about the two lawyer thing......but do you have some drugs we could share???

Just kidding, have fun with your car and drive it the way you want to and let the chips, or tickets, fall where they may.

Later

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by JProberts

Cool, I was just being a douche bag,wasn't really serious about the two lawyer thing......but do you have some drugs we could share???

Just kidding, have fun with your car and drive it the way you want to and let the chips, or tickets, fall where they may.

I choose the third option -- driving how I like and *preventing* those chips from falling.

Mod 1.

Mod 2.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by RAdams

... then put some fart cans on it and it would sound SWEEEEEEET!

What are you, living in the 50's? I have a cassette tape that goes VAAARRRROOOOOM!!!!

(Too bad my car doesn't have a tape deck anymore.)

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by RAdams

... then put some fart cans on it and it would sound SWEEEEEEET!

That's too fast. We're supposed to get it down to 5 mph on the highway.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I've been trying to explain the difference between the law and law enforcement for a long time on this forum. I have no idea why it's not sinking in.

It's not sinking in because the difference you speak of is only evidence that the speed laws are arbitrary. If you don't have to enforce them every.single.time. then why have them at all?

[brtaus]

Originally Posted by Rayner

But that amount changes from place to place.



There's something you can do about those cameras as well. I saw it on another message board. Think James Bond or Knight Rider.

Well, there is the easier thing to do. In AZ, the law states you must be served in person for a traffic violation. For the speed camera violations, you get them in the mail. If you get one, throw it away. The state has to send a process server to you and serve you. But with the state in such a budget crunch, they can't. If after 90 days from getting the ticket, you haven't been served, no more ticket. Now, this applies to the average person who gets one ticket (which is $181). The idiots who makes it their mission to try and see how many they can get in a day, week, month, the state most certainly tracks them down.

Just to tell how much of an epic failure these cameras are, the state expected to make $1 billion dollars off of them in the first year. One year later, they made $36 million. They cost $25 million to install and operate. People figured out the law, and word spread and people didn't pay.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by brtaus

Just to tell how much of an epic failure these cameras are, the state expected to make $1 billion dollars off of them in the first year. One year later, they made $36 million. They cost $25 million to install and operate. People figured out the law, and word spread and people didn't pay.

We had a similar debacle here. They were tired of people running red lights and causing accidents. So the solution -- red light cameras. The effect -- red light-running accidents went down; red light rear-end collisions went up, as people suddenly slammed on their brakes at yellow lights to avoid a ticket.

Then, as with your area, the system that was supposed to 'pay for itself with the money from all the fines' suddenly was too expensive to operate because people weren't running the lights 'often enough.'

[brtaus]

Originally Posted by Rayner

It's not sinking in because the difference you speak of is only evidence that the speed laws are arbitrary. If you don't have to enforce them every.single.time. then why have them at all?

Read back through this thread and there is an entire discussion on that already.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by Rayner

I think you're missing the point of posts like this. You assume someone who creates a thread like this is some nefarious habitual law breaker who's just looking to get out of trouble.

It's just as likely that someone did, in fact, get nailed when they shouldn't have. We've all seen or heard stories about false stops and such. It happens. Cops are human too and they make mistakes and sometimes even let their emotions get the better of them.

Remember, every bad cop out there makes EVERY cop look bad because those are the experiences people point to most often.

I've had many dealings with good cops. But I've also had a run-in with a couple of bad ones.

The simple fact is that fighting a charge in court is everyone's right as an American. You can't change that by saying they shouldn't fight or that they should just slow down.

You show me a person who *always* does the posted limit, and I will show you someone who routinely sees TONS of cars zooming past him, some while sending nice colorful 'gestures' his way.

"Remember, every bad cop out there makes EVERY cop look bad because those are the experiences people point to most often."

Everyone should understand that in every profession there are people who are not as good as they should be. Humans and make mistakes, even doctors make mistakes on the surgery table, this does not make all Doctors bad.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Rayner

It's not sinking in because the difference you speak of is only evidence that the speed laws are arbitrary. If you don't have to enforce them every.single.time. then why have them at all?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Here's what I want to do:

• initiate a piece of legislation the raises all non-residential and non-school zone speed limits by 10 mph with local governments allowed to raise even higher
• raise the highway speed limits another 20 mph (now up to 100 mph)
• enforce as frequently as possible
• increase fines and points for non-speeding moving violations (not using turn signals, failing to yield right of way, etc.)
• create a system of fines based on the potential for additional damage and harm (vehicles with more mass have higher fines because more mass going too fast means more carnage)

The current standard has lasted for decades, and cars have gotten that much more technological improvement. Drivers have remained as reckless as always, so the standards for obtaining a license should be higher, as outlined in this plan:

• raise required test scores for licenses
• replace initial license with temporary license
• as a condition of the temporary license, the holder must not have a single moving violation for 8 months or the license is immediately revoked
• license testing must be done every 5 years for life

So far, the opposition plan is as follows:

• reduce highway speed limits to 5 mph and all other speed limits to even less (1-mph residential, etc.)
• install 3-cylinder engines where V8s used to go

Mine is better.

[brtaus]

Originally Posted by Rayner

We had a similar debacle here. They were tired of people running red lights and causing accidents. So the solution -- red light cameras. The effect -- red light-running accidents went down; red light rear-end collisions went up, as people suddenly slammed on their brakes at yellow lights to avoid a ticket.

Similar effect here. Once the cameras were installed, the rear-end collisions went up but the guy three cars in front of you was doing 80, coming up to the camera, then would suddenly jam on the brakes, dropping to 60 and the car behind him would hit him. Then, it was a big chain reaction. Over time though, that stopped and people just drive 74 or under. Although, there is still the jack hole who is doing the speed limit, 65, who will jam on the brakes to 50 right before the camera.

[brtaus]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Now we're getting somewhere.


Here's what I want to do:

• initiate a piece of legislation the raises all non-residential and non-school zone speed limits by 10 mph with local governments allowed to raise even higher
• raise the highway speed limits another 20 mph (now up to 100 mph)
• enforce as frequently as possible
• increase fines and points for non-speeding moving violations (not using turn signals, failing to yield right of way, etc.)
• create a system of fines based on the potential for additional damage and harm (vehicles with more mass have higher fines because more mass going too fast means more carnage)

The current standard has lasted for decades, and cars have gotten that much more technological improvement. Drivers have remained as reckless as always, so the standards for obtaining a license should be higher, as outlined in this plan:

• raise required test scores for licenses
• replace initial license with temporary license
• as a condition of the temporary license, the holder must not have a single moving violation for 8 months or the license is immediately revoked
• license testing must be done every 5 years for life

So far, the opposition plan is as follows:

• reduce highway speed limits to 5 mph and all other speed limits to even less (1-mph residential, etc.)
• install 3-cylinder engines where V8s used to go

Mine is better.

When I moved to AZ and got my license, I discovered it was good until 2036. That means, when you turn 16, your license is good until you are 65

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Mine is better.

But sadly, neither idea will be used. Thus the debate will never end.