My top 10 enforcement & countermeasure pet peeves

Not sure if this belongs in the Lounge, but it's countermeasure related so I'll post it here and if someone wants to move it, I won't pout for too long. ;)

I'm going to try and keep this to a top 10 list. Feel free to post your own.

My Top 10 Enforcement and Countermeasure Pet Peeves

10. LIDAR
In the hands of a skilled operator LIDAR is deadly. But why is it only #10 on my list? Because I rarely encounter it, and if I did, I'd get a laser jammer.

9. Cobras
They give the countermeasure users a bad rap. They are among the poorest performing RDs on the market, but the top selling brand. But worst of all is their annoying tendency to leak at frequencies that set off other RDs.

8. "Speed Kills"
Every time I see this phrase, especially when it's used to justify additional speed enforcement, it makes my blood boil. Proponents tend to filter the facts to fit their agenda. Exceeding an arbitrary and underposted speed limit is not dangerous at all. Driving like an idiot or driving drunk, those are far more dangerous than "speeding".

7. Laws making countermeasures illegal
Well, any laws that are purely anti-consumer or anti-motorist are peeves of mine (don't get me started on the DMCA). Most relevant to the discussion are laws that make detectors or laser jammers illegal in certain locations or for certain classes of drivers. The fact is, smart RD users tend to be more alert than those without them, so making them illegal is counterproductive from a safety standpoint. They're only illegal because they impact speeding ticket revenue, and such laws are justified due to our countermeasures being used as "tools to break the law."

6. Radar-based door openers
Once upon a time, automatic doors were triggered by pressure pads that emitted no signal whatsoever. Then, someone got the bright idea that a wireless solution would be cheaper to install, so someone invented radar based door openers. While these originally polluted the X band, nowadays they primarily occupy K band, which in the good old days was a reasonably false free band, and still popular with LEOs. Why they don't use cheap, reliable passive infrared sensors is beyond me.

5. Infiniti LCC (and other radar or laser based adaptive cruise controls)
Another "bright idea" that wasn't really thought through very well. These are primarily annoyances for V1 users, but they can trigger laser jammers as well. But worse is that some may come to rely on the adaptive cruise to handle the task of driving (well, braking) for them. And these things will only appear in more and cheaper cars over time.

4. Points and Insurance Surcharges
If the fact that speeding tickets are used as a revenue source for local/state governments isn't bad enough, insurance surcharges are the ultimate scam. The argument is that drivers with tickets are at a higher risk for accident claims, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for those with only speeding tickets. Get nailed in a speed trap at 65 in a 55 or something equally ridiculous, and you're branded as a "risky" driver and your rates go up. Even worse, some insurance companies use the extra money to donate radar/laser guns to police departments, so they can do what? Give out more tickets, resulting in even more insurance surcharges. These are the kinds of things that should be illegal, not RDs and jammers.

3. Tickets given for "70 in a 55"
More proof of speeding enforcement being used as a revenue scheme. Many stretches of highway are engineered for safe travel at over 70 mph, but are underposted at 55. Then, since everyone "speeds" through these stretches, they are constantly patrolled and they become ticket factories. Route 3 in southern NH/northern MA is a classic example of this. How many unfair tickets have been issued on highways such as this, when the victim was traveling at a perfectly safe and reasonable speed for conditions? Look in our "beat a ticket" forum for many examples.

2. Hidden and/or Unmarked vehicles used for speed enforcement.
Once again, proof of enforcement for revenue. If speed enforcement was done for safety reasons, a LEO would park out in the open, and if using radar, would run it constant. This provides a visible presence which encourages drivers to watch their speed and in general, be more alert while driving. Hiding or using unmarked vehicles doesn't encourage better driving, it just causes more tickets, and more revenue.

and Numero Uno is...

1. INSTANT ON!!!!!!!!
I *HATE* instant on. HATE HATE HATE HATE it. If anything should be outlawed as a speed trap scam, this is it. This is the one and only thing we don't have a truly reliable defense against. Rabbits help but not always. Everytime I read of "increased enforcement" in an area and then hear that they're using I/O, laser, or other sneaky tactics, the big dollar sign appears above my head. My worst close calls have been I/O attacks.

Ok, so what are yours?

Can't disagree more on that kpatz. I think this goes for a sticky.

I think you pretty much covered it my friend

~


:dito:



Amen to all your ideas and conclusions, kpatz... Amen.

I don't think anybody could improve on your list as it relates to this forum.

Thanks!


~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

Can't disagree more on that kpatz. I think this goes for a sticky.

---

I think you mean "can't agree more". =)

I think you got it on this one.

Instant on is my number one :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpatz

8. "Speed Kills"
Every time I see this phrase, especially when it's used to justify additional speed enforcement, it makes my blood boil. Proponents tend to filter the facts to fit their agenda. Exceeding an arbitrary and underposted speed limit is not dangerous at all. Driving like an idiot or driving drunk, those are far more dangerous than "speeding".

---

Sorry, but you guys are all wet on this one. You're intentionally ignoring the laws of physics to suit a dishonest agenda. Simply being an idiot or drunk is no more dangerous than simply speeding. Why? Because the level of danger is determined by behaviour, not by mental status. It's not the drunk driver's alcohol that kills you. It's his driving that kills you. Now, answer this simple question. Would you rather him hit you at 75 mph, or at 30 mph? How about this: would you rather be doing 75 mph when he pulls out in front of you, or 30 mph? There's no way to parse that one. Speed kills. Whining about it does not change the law of physics. And it doesn't matter if it was the other guy's fault that you crashed. You still lose.

If you want to say you simply don't care because you are teh aw3some driver, that's an honest position. But arguing that speed doesn't kill is dishonest, and frankly silly.

I disagree its like saying guns kill people.. not quite, people kill people with guns. Using your situation if that driver hadn't been drunk then he would have regonized that a speeding or vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed was coing in his direction and him pulling out would result in an accident or near accident. The driver speeding wasn't really doing anything... wrong... or dangerous per say, clarification he wasn't necesarily driving recklessly if LEO's say 20 over is where reckless begins. So I disagree and agree with Kpatz in his observation with regards to the saying of Speed kills. I believe that there are smart and idiot drivers out there, they both can cause accidents regardless of speeding or not speeding.

I strongly agree with your #2. Those are spreading like a disease here in Texas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stilldrivin

I disagree its like saying guns kill people.. not quite, people kill people with guns. Using your situation if that driver hadn't been drunk then he would have regonized that a speeding or vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed was coing in his direction and him pulling out would result in an accident or near accident.

---

Your disagreement doesn't work semantically or logically.

Drunk is the gun. Speed is the drunk pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the speed that kills.

Fritters top ten complaints against people he has pulled over and will ensure you get a ticky tick.....


10. Being really, really nice to the point of syrupy fakeness until I present you with the citation to which you then turn into a jerk calling me names and threating me with complaints.

9. Crying. You will get a citation from me everytime if you cry. Especially if your a dude.

8. Asking me why I'm not going after "real crooks".

7. Arguing whether I got the "right one" or not. I did, and there is no question, other wise I wouldn't be giving you a citation.

6. Asking me why I didn't pull over the car next to you that was "going faster then me?". Remember, I fish with a pole, not a net.

5. Offering bribes. It's insulting.

4. THreatening to take me to court. Please do. I actually enjoy court and getting on the stand. Remember, I don't issue citations unless I am sure and I take really good notes.

3. Getting personal. I don't take citations personal. I am a motor cop. It is my job. So don't sit there and call me names or involve my family. I'm issuing the ticket. Not my kids. And yes, if my kid gets a ticket he will pay for it. He knows better.

2. Flashing any part of your anatomy while shamelessly flirting. You will get a ticket every time. That goes for the ladies too..:D

1. Name dropping. I don't care who you know. Call them. Complain to them. It still doesn't change the fact that you were committing a violation that caused me to have to take action to cease the violation.

Drive safe.

F

^^
:lol::lol::lol:

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Drunk is the gun. Speed is the drunk pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the speed that kills.

---

Now that's the most acerebral, ultracrepidarian, vecordious piece of yirning reasoning I have ever seen... And it makes no sense.

Like it or not, it is the drunk (person) pulling the trigger... And the car is the gun, period.

Speed didn't kill anybody. Neither did the alcohol the drunk consumed. The drunk himself does the killing, period. If a drunk shot somebody with a gun, you wouldn't say it was the velocity of the bullet that killed his victim, would you?


~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Drunk is the gun. Speed is the drunk pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the speed that kills.

---

Now that's the most acerebral, ultracrepidarian, vecordious piece of yirning reasoning I have ever seen... And it makes not sense.

Like it or not, it is the drunk (person) pulling the trigger... And the car is the gun, period.

Speed didn't kill anybody. Neither did the alcohol the drunk consumed. The drunk himself does the killing, period. If a drunk shot somebody with a gun, you wouldn't say it was the velocity of the bullet that killed his victim, would you?


~

---

Totally agree. It's "excessive speed" speed and imapired mind that kills from use of alcohol/drugs, degenerative changes of the brain and mental illness. Even at lower speeds, an impaired mind can wreck havoc.

Quote:

---

Fritters top ten complaints against people he has pulled over and will ensure you get a ticky tick.....


10. Being really, really nice to the point of syrupy fakeness until I present you with the citation to which you then turn into a jerk calling me names and threating me with complaints.

9. Crying. You will get a citation from me everytime if you cry. Especially if your a dude.

8. Asking me why I'm not going after "real crooks".

7. Arguing whether I got the "right one" or not. I did, and there is no question, other wise I wouldn't be giving you a citation.

6. Asking me why I didn't pull over the car next to you that was "going faster then me?". Remember, I fish with a pole, not a net.

5. Offering bribes. It's insulting.

4. THreatening to take me to court. Please do. I actually enjoy court and getting on the stand. Remember, I don't issue citations unless I am sure and I take really good notes.

3. Getting personal. I don't take citations personal. I am a motor cop. It is my job. So don't sit there and call me names or involve my family. I'm issuing the ticket. Not my kids. And yes, if my kid gets a ticket he will pay for it. He knows better.

2. Flashing any part of your anatomy while shamelessly flirting. You will get a ticket every time. That goes for the ladies too..http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...es/biggrin.gif

1. Name dropping. I don't care who you know. Call them. Complain to them. It still doesn't change the fact that you were committing a violation that caused me to have to take action to cease the violation.

Drive safe.

F

---

Fritter, don't you hijack kpatz thread. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stilldrivin

I disagree its like saying guns kill people.. not quite, people kill people with guns. Using your situation if that driver hadn't been drunk then he would have regonized that a speeding or vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed was coing in his direction and him pulling out would result in an accident or near accident.

---

Your disagreement doesn't work semantically or logically.

Drunk is the gun. Speed is the drunk pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the speed that kills.

---

Quit giving guns a bad name.64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

Now that's the most acerebral, ultracrepidarian, vecordious piece of yirning reasoning I have ever seen... And it makes no sense.

---

You can spend all day with your thesaurus, but it still doesn't negate the laws of physics. And any attempt to do so just makes you look sillier.

i could nt agree more police hiding in unmarked car on road/highways piss me off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

Fritters top ten complaints against people he has pulled over and will ensure you get a ticky tick.....


10. Being really, really nice to the point of syrupy fakeness until I present you with the citation to which you then turn into a jerk calling me names and threating me with complaints.

9. Crying. You will get a citation from me everytime if you cry. Especially if your a dude.

8. Asking me why I'm not going after "real crooks".

7. Arguing whether I got the "right one" or not. I did, and there is no question, other wise I wouldn't be giving you a citation.

6. Asking me why I didn't pull over the car next to you that was "going faster then me?". Remember, I fish with a pole, not a net.

5. Offering bribes. It's insulting.

4. THreatening to take me to court. Please do. I actually enjoy court and getting on the stand. Remember, I don't issue citations unless I am sure and I take really good notes.

3. Getting personal. I don't take citations personal. I am a motor cop. It is my job. So don't sit there and call me names or involve my family. I'm issuing the ticket. Not my kids. And yes, if my kid gets a ticket he will pay for it. He knows better.

2. Flashing any part of your anatomy while shamelessly flirting. You will get a ticket every time. That goes for the ladies too..:D

1. Name dropping. I don't care who you know. Call them. Complain to them. It still doesn't change the fact that you were committing a violation that caused me to have to take action to cease the violation.

Drive safe.

F

---

001. People who toss a stimkbomb out the window before you make it to their door to welcome you and leave their windows up:p

I'll add a few pet peeves to Fritter's list:

11. Pulling to the left shoulder instead of the right shoulder when I pull you over.

12. Making me ask you to roll your window down.

13. Asking me why I pulled you over before I've even had the chance to introduce myself.

14. Making or taking phone calls during the stop.

15. Asking to see the radar.

I don't have a problem with flashed anatomy. Just don't expect it to help your case. :D

The top three ways to get out of a ticket with me:

1. Honesty. If you don't try to BS me, you have a very good chance of getting off with a warning.

2. Comedy. Make me laugh, and again, you're probably going to get off with a warning.

3. Veteran's plates. Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

I'll add a few pet peeves to Fritter's list:

11. Pulling to the left shoulder instead of the right shoulder when I pull you over.

12. Making me ask you to roll your window down.

13. Asking me why I pulled you over before I've even had the chance to introduce myself.

14. Making or taking phone calls during the stop.

15. Asking to see the radar.

I don't have a problem with flashed anatomy. Just don't expect it to help your case. :D

The top three ways to get out of a ticket with me:

1. Honesty. If you don't try to BS me, you have a very good chance of getting off with a warning.

2. Comedy. Make me laugh, and again, you're probably going to get off with a warning.

3. Veteran's plates. Nuff said.

---

Off to steal some Veteran Plates from a red corvette!!!:D (Just kidding)

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/o...sphil/amen.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpatz

8. "Speed Kills"
Every time I see this phrase, especially when it's used to justify additional speed enforcement, it makes my blood boil. Proponents tend to filter the facts to fit their agenda. Exceeding an arbitrary and underposted speed limit is not dangerous at all. Driving like an idiot or driving drunk, those are far more dangerous than "speeding".

---

Sorry, but you guys are all wet on this one. You're intentionally ignoring the laws of physics to suit a dishonest agenda. Simply being an idiot or drunk is no more dangerous than simply speeding. Why? Because the level of danger is determined by behaviour, not by mental status. It's not the drunk driver's alcohol that kills you. It's his driving that kills you. Now, answer this simple question. Would you rather him hit you at 75 mph, or at 30 mph? How about this: would you rather be doing 75 mph when he pulls out in front of you, or 30 mph? There's no way to parse that one. Speed kills. Whining about it does not change the law of physics. And it doesn't matter if it was the other guy's fault that you crashed. You still lose.

If you want to say you simply don't care because you are teh aw3some driver, that's an honest position. But arguing that speed doesn't kill is dishonest, and frankly silly.

---

I would never argue against the laws of physics. I know how braking distances increase exponentially with speed just like the kinetic energy that kills people in crashes. Theoretically, slower is always safer because everything that contributes to crashes and kills when they happen is a greater factor as speed increases.

However, that doesn't mean 30 MPH is always safer than 75. In the real world, every road at every different time of day in all different traffic conditions present different dangers that drivers need to consider. It would be overkill to go 30 MPH on the highway, but it may be too fast in a crowded town full of pedestrians and bicyclists.

]4. Points and Insurance Surcharges[/b]
If the fact that speeding tickets are used as a revenue source for local/state governments isn't bad enough, insurance surcharges are the ultimate scam. The argument is that drivers with tickets are at a higher risk for accident claims, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for those with only speeding tickets. Get nailed in a speed trap at 65 in a 55 or something equally ridiculous, and you're branded as a "risky" driver and your rates go up. Even worse, some insurance companies use the extra money to donate radar/laser guns to police departments, so they can do what? Give out more tickets, resulting in even more insurance surcharges. These are the kinds of things that should be illegal, not RDs and jammers.


Let us not forget that many Insurance companies arm police departments with radar guns . In Virginia , for instance , many State Troopers use what are known as Geico Guns . Very sad . Just like a speeding ticket , insurance for drivers is a money making scam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpatz

8. "Speed Kills"
Every time I see this phrase, especially when it's used to justify additional speed enforcement, it makes my blood boil. Proponents tend to filter the facts to fit their agenda. Exceeding an arbitrary and underposted speed limit is not dangerous at all. Driving like an idiot or driving drunk, those are far more dangerous than "speeding".

---

Sorry, but you guys are all wet on this one. You're intentionally ignoring the laws of physics to suit a dishonest agenda. Simply being an idiot or drunk is no more dangerous than simply speeding. Why? Because the level of danger is determined by behaviour, not by mental status. It's not the drunk driver's alcohol that kills you. It's his driving that kills you. Now, answer this simple question. Would you rather him hit you at 75 mph, or at 30 mph? How about this: would you rather be doing 75 mph when he pulls out in front of you, or 30 mph? There's no way to parse that one. Speed kills. Whining about it does not change the law of physics. And it doesn't matter if it was the other guy's fault that you crashed. You still lose.

If you want to say you simply don't care because you are teh aw3some driver, that's an honest position. But arguing that speed doesn't kill is dishonest, and frankly silly.

---

Well, a recent government agency study found that speeding, in and of itself and without any other factors, is responsible for only about 6% of highway accidents. Other government studies show that well over 60% of road fatalities occur on back roads rather than on interstates. Every week in my local paper people are arrested for driving on suspended licenses. Those people usually are drunk. If law enforcement really wanted to make the roads safer, they would set up random road blocks for license and insurance checks, rather than simply going after casual speeders simply to generate revenue. My point is that is that the primary motivation is revenue -- no matter how you slice or dice it. In short, it is a corrupt 36 billion dollar a year industry which is sustained by lining the pockets of several hundred state politicians. And that is the long and the short of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

Well, a recent government agency study found that speeding, in and of itself and without any other factors, is responsible for only about 6% of highway accidents. Other government studies show that well over 60% of road fatalities occur on back roads rather than on interstates. Every week in my local paper people are arrested for driving on suspended licenses. Those people usually are drunk. If law enforcement really wanted to make the roads safer, they would set up random road blocks for license and insurance checks, rather than simply going after casual speeders simply to generate revenue. My point is that is that the primary motivation is revenue -- no matter how you slice or dice it. In short, it is a corrupt 36 billion dollar a year industry which is sustained by lining the pockets of several hundred state politicians. And that is the long and the short of it.

---

Can you show me a link regarding this? I would appreciate it.

Great thread Kpatz. Fantastic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

If law enforcement really wanted to make the roads safer, they would set up random road blocks for license and insurance checks, rather than simply going after casual speeders simply to generate revenue.

---

They would, but people complained about that too. Then the ACLU took it to the courts and got it tossed. Consequently, they're left with speeding.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

You can spend all day with your thesaurus, but it still doesn't negate the laws of physics. And any attempt to do so just makes you look sillier.

---

I didn't need to spend even a moment with a thesaurus. Benefits of a good education I guess. Sorry you had to crack the books to keep up. I'll try and keep the vocabulary simpler for you in the future.

And I assure that thanks to my academic and professional background I have a very good understanding of the laws of physics. But we'll get back to physics in a moment...

As for looking silly, I'm afraid you have that base more than covered for the moment. Only a very silly and illogical mind with extremely flawed reasoning could possibly champion that moronic cliche "Speed Kills".

Tell me, exactly what is the finite speed of fatality? How fast is fatally fast? 5 MPH? 10? 20? 50? 70? 100? 150? You can't tell me because there is no true answer. Even the PSL on any roadway in the country is not the true answer. There are too many variables, and you certainly do not posses the proper credentials to be the one to determine anything close to a logical answer. Rather, as most plodding sycophants, you simply follow along with a party line proposed and determined by someone somewhere else who has ulterior motives for setting those limits.

The US Interstate system was originally designed for 70 MPH speed limits back in the 1950's, for cars with 1950's chassis and suspension components, 1950's brakes, 1950's tires, etc. Do you honestly think that vehicular technology has remained stagnant during 5 decades? Are you going to tell me that tires, brakes, etc. have not vastly improved since these wonderful roads were engineered? Worse yet, how can it be that some roads that were designed in 1950 for sustained traffic speeds of 70 MPH are now suddenly deemed 55 MPH roads? And how is it that often these are suddenly declared 55 MPH for only 2 or 3 miles by some greedy, little municipality, only to become 70 MPH again after passing through such Speedtrapville's?

Now, back to physics for a moment...

When we are talking about the speeds attainable by today's street cars (and motorcycles), it is actually physically impossible that "Speed Kills", at least according to the laws of physics...

Think about that carefully, SS, before you dispute that.

So, now if you have a moment, tell me...

If a drunk shots somebody with a gun, what killed the victim?

The gun? The alcohol? The velocity of the bullet? Or was it the drunk himself? Here's a hint... It's all about responsibility, not about physics, and a judge or jury won't convict the bottle, the gun, or its projectile's ballistics.



~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

2. Flashing any part of your anatomy while shamelessly flirting. You will get a ticket every time. That goes for the ladies too..:D

---

I don't understand thing one...I mean I understand that it won't get anybody out of a ticket, but if a pretty lady wants to give you a free show, why does this piss you off? :LOL:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

11. Pulling to the left shoulder instead of the right shoulder when I pull you over.

---

I've heard the other way around...because the driver's doors (yours and mine) are on the left, pulling to the right shoulder forces the LEO to open his door into traffic and stand between traffic and the driver's car, which I've heard many LEOs do not like. Does the desire to avoid having to pull out into the "fast lane" after the stop override this for you?

I'll ignore the personal insults, and you would be well advised to do the same. I'm no physicist. But I can assure you that my education is far more substantial than you think. Pursuing that line of taunting is only going to result in more fail for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

If a drunk shots somebody with a gun, what killed the victim?

The gun? The alcohol? The velocity of the bullet? Or was it the drunk himself? Here's a hint... It's all about responsibility, not about physics, and a judge or jury won't convict the bottle, the gun, or its projectile's ballistics.

---

The question itself is actually several questions in one. Do you mean in a medical sense? Do you mean in a legal sense? Do you mean in a semantic sense? The answer varies with your interpretation of the question.

The truth is that every factor plays a part in the death. If you crash at 75 mph into a drunk driver, who pulled out in front of you, and would not have done so at 30 mph, then speed killed you. If you get run over at 75 mph instead of 30 mph, then speed killed you. In both instances, the incident would not have resulted in your death had it not been for the speed factor. In fact, in both instances, the event incident probably would not have even happened if it were not for your speed.

You can intelligently argue that speed in and of itself is not a killer. No argument there. But it is only a semantic victory, because speed is indeed a decisive factor in the death. The Medical Examiner is going to say so. The District Attorney is going to say so. And the jury is going to say so too.

I wish you two would stop the pissing contest, you're talking in different directions by now and you probably don't even realize it.

More importantly, I want SS to elaborate on the point I asked about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

11. Pulling to the left shoulder instead of the right shoulder when I pull you over.

---

I've heard the other way around...because the driver's doors (yours and mine) are on the left, pulling to the right shoulder forces the LEO to open his door into traffic and stand between traffic and the driver's car, which I've heard many LEOs do not like. Does the desire to avoid having to pull out into the "fast lane" after the stop override this for you?

---

Sorry. We were posting at the same time, so I never saw this post.

You may have heard that speculated by some non-LEOs, but I don't think you ever heard that from a LEO. The law says you must pull right. Think about it; assuming that an officer wants you to do something contrary to the law is a very dangerous assumption, don't you think?

I've never known an officer who didn't get pissed off when a violator pulled to the left. Anytime you do something contrary to what the officer and every other car on the road is expecting you to do, you're complicating the situation and making it less safe for all involved. Now, add in the move-over laws, and suddenly it is the people in the fast lane who are having to jam on their brakes and try to merge. Does that sound safe to you? Would that make you happy if you were in the left lane?

On the right shoulder, I can pull far off the road. On the left shoulder, I have to park very close to the lane of traffic just to have room enough left between me and the guardrail to open the door. And on the right, I can approach the violator on the passenger side. On the left, I cannot approach on the passenger side.

And, of course, If I get plowed into, I want it to be by the slowest moving car on the road, not the fastest.

Seriously, I don't think you will find a real LEO who would be happy about you pulling to the left. Personally, that always amounted to a second ticket for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

I'll ignore the personal insults, and you would be well advised to do the same. I'm no physicist. But I can assure you that my education is far more substantial than you think. Pursuing that line of taunting is only going to result in more fail for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

If a drunk shots somebody with a gun, what killed the victim?

The gun? The alcohol? The velocity of the bullet? Or was it the drunk himself? Here's a hint... It's all about responsibility, not about physics, and a judge or jury won't convict the bottle, the gun, or its projectile's ballistics.

---

The question itself is actually several questions in one. Do you mean in a medical sense? Do you mean in a legal sense? Do you mean in a semantic sense? The answer varies with your interpretation of the question.

The truth is that every factor plays a part in the death. If you crash at 75 mph into a drunk driver, who pulled out in front of you, and would not have done so at 30 mph, then speed killed you. If you get run over at 75 mph instead of 30 mph, then speed killed you. In both instances, the incident would not have resulted in your death had it not been for the speed factor. In fact, in both instances, the event incident probably would not have even happened if it were not for your speed.

You can intelligently argue that speed in and of itself is not a killer. No argument there. But it is only a semantic victory, because speed is indeed a decisive factor in the death. The Medical Examiner is going to say so. The District Attorney is going to say so. And the jury is going to say so too.

---

I haven't failed here yet so you can lay off the taunts, too, Mr. Moderator. And I understand now because of your position that you have free reign to toss personal insults but no one else is allowed to...

As for the speed issue, please tell me honestly - are you really saying that 30 MPH is safe? That there is no way to have a fatality in a car at 30 MPH? If so, should we all be traveling only at 30 MPH, even on interstates?

I did notice that you completely ignored the questions regarding design PSL's for interstates, etc...

At least you are coming around to the fact that there are numerous factors in variables in determining what is a proper speed for conditions. Too bad you cannot seem to publicly admit that a proper and safe speed may be actually far, far above the PSL. After all, LEO's do it all the time, whether going to an emergency or not...

And no matter what you say, or how you cut it, twist it, fold it, spindle it, or mutilate it... the drunk killed the victim, whether with the car or the gun. At least relative to the hypothetical situations presented in this thread.








(p.s. we used to have an old saying in motorcycle racing... It's not the fall that kills you. It's that sudden stop at the end.)

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

As for the speed issue, please tell me honestly - are you really saying that 30 MPH is safe?

---

Is that how you honestly interpreted what I was saying? I can't imagine how, because I never said anything of the sort. 30 and 75 were numbers chosen at random, and do not represent any statistical significance. I never claimed any magic number of death. I never claimed that any particular speed limit was good or bad.

My point is simple: the faster you are going, the harder you crash, and the harder it is to avoid the crash. That is my whole point. Period. Nothing else. Now, with that cleared up, do you still dispute it?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

My point is simple: the faster you are going, the harder you crash, and the harder it is to avoid the crash. That is my whole point. Period. Nothing else. Now, with that cleared up, do you still dispute it?

---

You might want to go back and re-read this thread, and particularly your own posts. I'm not the one saying "Speed Kills". You are - repeatedly.

Things like the following:

Quote:

---

"There's no way to parse that one. Speed kills. Whining about it does not change the law of physics. And it doesn't matter if it was the other guy's fault that you crashed. You still lose."

---

Quote:

---

"Drunk is the gun. Speed is the drunk pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the speed that kills."

---

The second one is especially bizarre... Almost unbelievable that anyone would even say it.



~

All irrelevant. But nice job of avoiding the question.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

All irrelevant. But nice job of avoiding the question.

---

You've avoided most all of mine... ;)

Does one hit an object with more energy if they are traveling at a higher speed? Sure.

But that's really not the question. The question is what is the real cause, and what has true responsibility, for the crash... And the answer to that is simple. The drunk who was impaired and pulled out in front of somebody.

If the speed limit on the roadway the victim was on was 70 MPH, and the victim was going 75 MPH when the drunk pulled out in front of him, then there is no way you can say it was the victim's speed, or speeding, that was the fatality factor...

Not anymore than you saying that it was the victim's not leaving his point of departure 5 seconds earlier, or 5 seconds later, that caused his death.

The drunk caused the problem. Not the speed.



~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmosedici

You've avoided most all of mine... ;)

---

Correct. In an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I ignored all of your questions that had nothing to do with the point at hand.

Quote:

---

Does one hit an object with more energy if they are traveling at a higher speed? Sure.

---

Okay, so we are in agreement. Speed is a factor in the ultimate outcome. And any contributing factor is responsible for the death. The points of yours that I have ignored have all been points of what other factors contribute. Pointless, because I have agreed all along that many other factors contribute. But again, just because you and three of your friends commit a robbery does not mean that you are not guilty. All contribute. All share guilt.

Quote:

---

But that's really not the question.

---

This is where the disagreement lies. It is the question. It is the question I posed from the beginning. You disagreed not because my answer was incorrect, but because you misunderstood the question. Sorry for the misunderstanding on that.

You agree it's a factor. I agree it is not the only factor. So wtf are we arguing about?

The fight is heating up :fight:

*puts popcorn in the microwave*

No but seriously, I feel as if this is like a 'chicken or the egg' situation. And as the argument continued on, I feel as if you both splintered into so many different branches that you are beginning to enter an infinite vicious circle.

Desmosedici, not to gang up on you or anything, but I feel that there are some holes in your argument and also some contradictions as well. It is 3:00 a.m. as I am reading this so I do not feel like multi-quoting right now, but they are apparent.

I personally feel that you are taking the saying ''speed kills'' out of context. Your arguments about doing 75 in a 70 are completely irrelevant. On top of that you posed several different questions and changed your wording as well, but I digress.

The fact is that SS is posing questions and you do not seem to be understanding them. You respond with random rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with that Stealth Stalker was trying to say in the first place. I think you got a little to hyped up and just misread. Not trying to be mean, but you are arguing a totally different point of view.

He is saying the faster you go, the more likely death is going to be, due to the increased velocity of the car.

You return with splintered ideas, such as "what is the real cause, and what has true responsibility, for the crash".

Ill save you the trouble of rereading the entire thread so that you both can adjust your arguments right now...

What kills a completely sober and mentally healthy individual who is traveling at high speeds in a car?

A. The speed, which has a direct impact on the crash
OR
B. Variables, which do not kill, but only create a scenario for that driver to react to, given his or her speed.

The answer should be easily and will end this argument relatively swiftly.

Now the real question is, what the hell am I doing up right now? Discuss in depth. ;)