Quick Poll, help!

[Stilldrivin]

Thanks for the response, and the poll is just an open answer to the two questions posted at the beginning.

CJR-
I totally agree, and some of the articles I have been reading and studying tend to show a one sided view of how RD's just allow drivers to be reckless. This poll, along with other documents, would show very much to the contrary. It not only makes more drivers aware, but helps them track their speed more effectively. Also, a point made which was good, if the police would leave their radar on constantly it would slow drivers with RD's down before. Drivers without the RD would just slow down when they saw the police like they do now. This alone goes to show how aware and benificial these devices can be.

Again Thanks for the response and anymore will continue to help.

Stilldrivin.

[FoolishOne]

It seems to me that I used to drive a lot faster in the past before I had a RD. I used to cruise at 90 but now that I have a RD and learned a ton about tactics the LEOs use, I actually don't speed much over 85 now. Weird huh

That, sir, deserves a .

Its so funny because I see people approach an over pass no problem, but I...take my foot off the gas, look on top, the median pillar, the shoulder pillar, and look behind it on the right side to see if there is anything hiding behind it...before I feel comfortable.

...but I know one of these days, I'm gonna 'outbrake' a laser hit that way.

[CJR238]

\

That, sir, deserves a .

Its so funny because I see people approach an over pass no problem, but I...take my foot off the gas, look on top, the median pillar, the shoulder pillar, and look behind it on the right side to see if there is anything hiding behind it...before I feel comfortable.

...but I know one of these days, I'm gonna 'outbrake' a laser hit that way.

A RD user is also going to be particularly cautious around turns and overpasses like FoolishOne stated above (many accidents are cause by visual obstructions). A restricted view of what's up ahead is something everyone should be cautious approaching (most aren't), but a RD user will be much more cautious. I know I am.

[Blaze Orange]

(A). No, two reasons why I use one. First, as the functions of LEO's is now about generating revenue and not traffic safety, traffic citations are a levy, that is a tax is which we the people have not decided by votes. And 2nd, it's a civil rights issue per the 4th Amendment of the Bill or Rights, being the issue of warrantless surveillance by the government. Just because I drive on a public highway paid for by some of my tax dollars; does not give the government the right to tell me that I've forfeited my rights to privacy, and that they have the right to infringe on it. As such, I maintain that I have the absolute right to protect that privacy, and will do so even if it means blatant and open and acts of civil disobedience.

(B). In some ways, as it helps to keep me alert. However, better yet then cops with radar guns would be to bring SWS online. Smart signs that would let you know of road conditions, a change in speed, or traffic conditions would serve everyone for the better.....

.

[erickonphoenix]

Is a radar detector just a license to speed for you?

No, it's a machine built for a purpose. To me it's a way to monitor a form of government search. I like to know who's shooting me, what they're shooting me with and where they are.

How has your detector allowed or helped you to become a better driver? I think the RDs (and certainly the police scanner) keep me more engaged with the road and what going on around me.

[Stilldrivin]

(A). No, two reasons why I use one. First, as the functions of LEO's is now about generating revenue and not traffic safety, traffic citations are a levy, that is a tax is which we the people have not decided by votes. And 2nd, it's a civil rights issue per the 4th Amendment of the Bill or Rights, being the issue of warrantless surveillance by the government. Just because I drive on a public highway paid for by some of my tax dollars; does not give the government the right to tell me that I've forfeited my rights to privacy, and that they have the right to infringe on it. As such, I maintain that I have the absolute right to protect that privacy, and will do so even if it means blatant and open and acts of civil disobedience.



.

Wow. I am blown away at how precise of a post this was. Great information and great insight. Quick question, are you a laywer? That read to me like a laywer so I was just curious.


Stilldrivin

Escort 9500i mounted high, not updated yet
G4 Veil with laser shields

[Paperlantern]

(A). No, two reasons why I use one. First, as the functions of LEO's is now about generating revenue and not traffic safety, traffic citations are a levy, that is a tax is which we the people have not decided by votes. And 2nd, it's a civil rights issue per the 4th Amendment of the Bill or Rights, being the issue of warrantless surveillance by the government. Just because I drive on a public highway paid for by some of my tax dollars; does not give the government the right to tell me that I've forfeited my rights to privacy, and that they have the right to infringe on it. As such, I maintain that I have the absolute right to protect that privacy, and will do so even if it means blatant and open and acts of civil disobedience.

(B). In some ways, as it helps to keep me alert. However, better yet then cops with radar guns would be to bring SWS online. Smart signs that would let you know of road conditions, a change in speed, or traffic conditions would serve everyone for the better.....

.

This cracked me up... seriously? Wow!

The 4th amendment has nothing to do with surveillance. Its Search and Seizure without probable cause. So, even as unrelated to the 4th amendment as capturing your speed with a device is, to refute your statement, if an officer has even the slightest thought that you might be speeding, he has every right to make sure you are or aren't, that's probable cause. The posted speed limit is a LAW and he/she, as a law enforcement officer can actively enforce that law and make sure all that are using the governement/state/province/county/whatever provided roadways are doing so within that law.

Furthermore, one's speed on a roadway is not soemthing that can be kept "private". You are in public, outside of your home, on a public road or freeway, and that information is laid bare for all to see, pace, measure or capture in any way they see fit. Just as a law enforcement officer cant ARREST you for using a LIDAR or RADAR gun on the side of the road in a safe manner, you cant expect him not to use one either.

I could go on and on, but i'll close with this... traffic citations are not a levy, or a tax, they are a penalty for breaking the law. PENALTIES are put in place for all to see in an effort to keep people FROM breaking the law, thus generating safety. You honestly think if they just announce they were never going to issue traffic citations again that the roads would be a SAFER place? C'mon man. You are way out by Pluto here. Come back to earth and hang with the rest of us again. I promise we wont bite.

To answer the questions:
1. No a radar detector is not a license to speed for me, but it is a tool i use to avoid getting caught breaking the law.

2. It HAS made me more aware while i drive as other posters have said, not just in speeding but also in other infractions like red lights, traffic patterns etc.

It does sound like a lawyer, I'll agree... but a really BAD lawyer... that argument would get destroyed in a courtroom... obviously

[Blaze Orange]

Wow. I am blown away at how precise of a post this was. Great information and great insight. Quick question, are you a laywer? That read to me like a laywer so I was just curious.


Stilldrivin

Escort 9500i mounted high, not updated yet
G4 Veil with laser shields

No, but I studied some Consitutional law. My degree is in Forensics (M.Sc.)


The 4th Amendment....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'll debate Paperlantern later....library closing....and I've not much time to dig into case law....

[CJR238]

No, but I studied some Consitutional law. My degree is in Forensics (M.Sc.)


The 4th Amendment....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'll debate Paperlantern later....library closing....and I've not much time to dig into case law....

Man that they should be throwing us in jail for speeding.
Doesn't that just confirm what Paperlantern stated? A speeding ticket is a fine not a warrant for search of your car or a tax, taxes are not optional you must pay them weather you speed or not.

[FoolishOne]

I'll debate Paperlantern later....library closing....and I've not much time to dig into case law....

We don't debate, we...teach, yeah, that's it...teach others of our opinions.

Anyway, I'm stilling around to see what you have to say.