My top 10 enforcement & countermeasure pet peeves

[category4]

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.

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!!! (Just kidding)

[taylormade]

[supercowpowers]

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.

[hollywoodpc]

]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

[MEM-TEK]

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.

[An0nym0us]

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.

[Stealth Stalker]

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.

[Desmosedici]

~

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.



~

[JDS]

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

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:

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?

[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.

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.