Subject: Re: Cops: Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them

From: [email-masked] (Jon Simon)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 05:05:18 GMT

RE: cops seeing decapitated babies etc all cause by speeders of course.

[email-masked], your post was stupid.  Here's why.  Lets say 10000
deaths will occur at 55mph.  Well, at 45 i'd bet 7000 would occur.
Hell, at 30 5000 would occur.  No, wait!  At 20 3000 would occur.  Hold
on... at 10, 1000 deaths would occur.  Oh my god!  At 1, 5 deaths would
occur!  Stop everything!  If we don't move at all, nobody will die!
YIPEEE!  Obvioulsy since you advocate 55mph and therefore all the deaths
which occur at that speed, you must be a sick perverted bastard.  You
must savor every single death.  Shame on you for driving at all, there's
the possibility you might die!

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:58:48 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jon Simon) wrote:

> [email-masked], your post was stupid.  Here's why. Stop everything! 
If we don't move at all, nobody will die!
> which occur at that speed, you must be a sick perverted bastard.

You haven't been following along closely enough.

I don't advocate 55mph speed limit. I think 65mph would be more reasonable.

However the thing that causes accidents on the highway is *differences* in 
speeds *between* vehicles.  If everybody was doing 65mph there wouldn't be 
a problem. 

However the speed limit is generally 55mph, and when people decide that 
they would rather go faster, and begin changing lanes, and going around others,
who are obeying the law, that's where the trouble starts.

So until the speed limit is 65mph, you are creating a hazard by exceeding it.

Jamie-Andrea Yanak

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Bentley)
Date: 18 Apr 1995 17:00:57 GMT

Lest anyone thing speed traps are anything but revenue generators, 
consider the use of unmarked cars by police.  If I'm in a cruisers, 
sitting on the side of the road in broad daylight, just about everybody 
going past is going to slow down toor near the limit.  Thus, dozens of 
cars per minute will be suddenly obeying the law.

If I'm hidden behind a bush in an unmarked Taurus, I will nail one driver 
every ten minutes or so, and create a roadside hazard in the process.

Which scenario can be described as "law enforcement?"

mb

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Osborne)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 15:58:47 GMT

Jamie Yanak ([email-masked]) wrote:
# In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
# > Jamie, you're in a dream world if you think that speeding tickets are
# > intended for anything else than revenue.  You think cops write tickets
# > for 60 in a 50 because think it is unsafe? BS!  If cops just wanted
# > to stop people from driving recklessly. .. they'd give tickets
# > for reckless driving, not speeding.
#
# They give tickets for wreckless driving too, and for the same reason they
# give them for speeding: to prevent anarchy on the road.

No,  they *occasionally* give tickets for reckless driving, failing to
yield, etc. to prevent anarchy on the road.  Mostly they only give tickets
for these if there's an accident and they have to.

Speeding is for revenue generation.   If it wasn't for photo radar the
police wouldn't ticket for 120 in a 100 on the 401 at all because the
police aren't stupid enough to believe Bob Rae when he says that it's
a safety issue.

# Besides, if you go far enough
# over the limit, it's considered Wreckless Driving, and you'll get a ticket
# for it along w/your speeding one. 

And without photo radar or radar traps that's just about the only time
that a police officer would stop you - when you're speeding excessively
or speeding and driving dangerously.

# Tickets cost money because there is no other viable way of punishing
# people for such an infraction.

No.  There is no other way that improves general revenue as efficiently.

The best way to prevent driving infractions is with better training and,
instead of just handing out fines, force the driver to reattend a drivers
education class and retest for their license.  Then all those rich guys
in their Lexi and Mercedes who get tickets couldn't just hand them to
their secetaries to "handle".  Plus the bad drivers they stop would get
better instead of just being let go to drive like an idiot again.

But that kind of system wouldn't improve revenues would it.

# Would you rather spend time in jail for speeding? How about 1 day for each
# mile an hour over the limit, doesn't sound very reasonable to me, but it
# might end speeding as we know it! Or how about speed 3 times and lose your
# license.

If speeding is a dangerous as you claim, why does this sound
unreasonable to you?

# If you don't beleive that's the reason, let me ask you: When you're late
# and you want to speed, but change your mind and don't, is it because you
# thought you might get injured doing it, or because you thought it might
# cost you $100

Considering that I don't believe that speeding is inheriently dangerous
my answer is obvious - because it might cost me $100.  You see, I'm not
stupid enough to think that just because Bob Rae says driving 120 in a
100 zone is very dangerous it is dangerous.   Especially considering
that Bob Rae's government is running up a massive deficet and his
solution to this "danger" just happens to generate a lot of money.

But I guess I'm just cynical.   Or perhaps you are naive?

# > Exactly!  Off duty cops speed more than anyone.  Also many police officers
# > cause accidents while running through red lights to buy doughnuts (
# > well, it is true that cops often cause massive amounts of damage in dubious
# > high speed chases .. and break the traffic laws that we have to obey --
# > running red lights, making illegal turns, etc,  -- for no good reason.)
# > They certainly don't lead by example.
#
# When cops get in accidents responding to calls it is *usually* because of
# some idiot that wasn't paying attention, and didn't see the strobes, or
# hear the siren because their radio was to loud.

You didn't address the issue of police officers driving poorly.  I've yet
to see a police car signal a lane change on the 401 or 400!  I've seen
numerous police cars turning without signaling and all sorts of other
safety violations without any reason at all.   Most police officers
speed off duty,  they have a get out of ticket free card.

# As far as "dubious high speed chases" go, if criminals thought police
# wouldn't chase them, they wouldn't bother stopping for them at all.

Yes.  The police *have* to chase,  you never know who is behind the
wheel of a car that rabbits.   Participating in a high speed chase
should result in an automatic prison sentence and loss of license
for the driver.

# Most police departments have strict policies *now* on when you can involve
# yourself in chases (it's not like t.v.). Most departments today will not
# allow you to continue a chase when it is a minor offense that you tried
# stopping them for in the first place. And most supervisors will order you
# to discontinue a chase, if the public is in to great a danger because of
# it.  

I only agree with the "public danger" part.  A large number of wanted
criminals are caught when stopped for routine traffic offences!

# And also contrary to popular belief: Police are not immune to the
# consequences of their actions in situations where they cause accidents. If
# you do not use reasonable judgement in such situations and injure someone,
# or damage their property, you are *personally* liable (meaning your
# savings, your house, you are the one in debt for the rest of your life
# from the lawsuit, not the city you work for) Where I live, an ambulance
# driver recently got out of jail, after being sent there for a couple
# years, because of an accident he caused on duty. 

The police *are* largely immune to the consequences of their actions.
How many of the police officers that have had accidental discharges that
killed suspects or fellow officers are still on duty?   Why is the turnover
at police departments so low for such a high risk, high stress job?
Especially amongst new hires?

# 12 years ago I left the sheriffs dept I worked for,
# because of injuries I sustained trying to catch up w/a speeder, when
# another vehicle 10 feet in front of me couldn't hear my siren, pulled into
# my lane and caused me to run over a muffler at 75 mph that was deposited
# onto the berm by somebodies piece of junk, that shouldn't have even been
# on the road.

Your views on speeding/photo radar are very different from all the other
police officers and former police officers that I know.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:29:59 GMT

: They give tickets for wreckless driving too, and for the same reason they
: give them for speeding: to prevent anarchy on the road. Besides, if you go
: far enough

I think the police should encourage wreckless driving.

: Tickets cost money because there is no other viable way of punishing
: people for such an infraction.

Tickets cost money because the state likes to collect as much tax revenue
as it can. 

: Would you rather spend time in jail for speeding? How about 1 day for each
: mile an hour over the limit, doesn't sound very reasonable to me, but it
: might end speeding as we know it! Or how about speed 3 times and lose your
: license.

: If you don't beleive that's the reason, let me ask you: When you're late
: and you want to speed, but change your mind and don't, is it because you
: thought you might get injured doing it, or because you thought it might
: cost you $100

: You don't have to answer, fines for speeding work, that's why they have them.

Fines for speeding DO NOT work.  Most everyone on the road speeds to a 
certain reasonable extent.  It just gives them some incentive to be careful.

: When cops get in accidents responding to calls it is *usually* because of
: some idiot that wasn't paying attention, and didn't see the strobes, or
: hear the siren because their radio was to loud.

At least where I live, police officers are not only driving dangerously
when responding to calls.  They typically will make any traffic move when
they have room to do so -- including running red lights, making illegal
turns, and even speeding.  This does not include when they are actually
responding to calls.  Of course we are idiots for not driving off into the
shoulder of the road to avoid the cop who runs a red light, with no 
strobes or sirens on, because he's ready for that next pot of coffee. 

: He was responding to a call where a pregnant woman was seriously injured in a 
: vehicle accident, and he caused another death during his response. After his
: conviction, don't tell me other emergency personnel didn't re-evalute just 
: what's in it for them to put themselves in danger, to get there in a hurry,
: when *you* need help. You just can't have it both ways.

Who wants it both ways?

: in the way they won't let somebody "get away from me," but the truth is it's
: no fun flying down the street at 50 mph, not knowing what drive the next
: dumb-shit is going to pull out in front of you from.

I suppose the public is just "dumb shits" to you.  Most of us just want 
to get from point A to B in a reasonable and timely manner, and the State 
wants to make an extra $100 here and there.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 22:15:15 -0400

> I think the police should encourage wreckless driving.

Pardon moi!
 
> certain reasonable extent.  It just gives them some incentive to be careful.

Gee, sounds like that incentive you are talking about proves my point. 

Besides most police ignore "reasonable" speeding (5-10mph). If they don't,
even I agree they're being pricks. I never wrote anyone until they were
past 10mph over, (unless I really had it out for them, and there was
nothibng else
I could do) 
  
> responding to calls.

How do you know where they are going, or what they are doing, are you psychic?
I don't see how an Emergency Vehicle can make an "illegal turn," or speed
for that matter. Emergency Vehicles are exempt from most traffic
regulations, with the stipulation that the driver uses "reasonable care"
not to endanger others.

Sorry, but the fact is in this instance (I know you're going to hate this, but)
police are just allowed to do things, you're not.  

> Of course we are idiots for not driving off into the

That's NOT what I was talking about. I very clearly stated people who are
so oblivious to what is going on that they can't hear a siren that's 10
feet behind them. Beleive me, there are lots of them out there. 

> wants to make an extra $100 here and there.

No I don't think everyone's a dumbshit. But I know from personal
experiance that 
"dumb-shits" comprise a higher percentage of the general population than
most people would think!

Jamie-Andrea Yanak

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Freedman)
Date: 22 Apr 1995 05:27:25 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>past 10mph over, (unless I really had it out for them, and there was

   When Bob Rae's Ontario government discovered that photo-radar wasn't
generating as much revenue as anticipated, they dropped the threshold (I
believe to <10kph, with announced intentions of 'zero tolerance' if the
money didn't start rolling in).

   Photo-radar is an effective revenue-generator, as the machine does not
miss speeders while tied up writing a ticket.

   I question its contribution to safety, at least as (ab)used in Ontario.
I've seen some amazing evasive action (brake hard and swerve) taken when
people spot the radar van hidden behind the bridge abutment.

   btw  I've received a few tickets for 50kph in a 40kph zone, but that was
in the city and, as the officers explained, was a matter of meeting quotas.
-- 
   [email-masked]   Mark Freedman (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

---

From: [email-masked] (Shiloh Costa)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 15:07:02

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Freedman) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Mark Freedman)
>Subject: Re: Cops:  Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them
>Date: 22 Apr 1995 05:27:25 -0400

I guess you have heard that photoradar is thinking of taking pictures
from the front too now, and not just the rear..  They are looking for
different variety to see which will generate the most tickets.
 
If I'm driving down 401 East, and a van facing me, emitts that bright
light in my eyes, I will be tempted to side-swipe the van causing an
accident so that it will be written up in the papers, on the news,
and maybe the government will say "Uh, maybe we should take another
look at the safety issue".
 
How about pulling over to the shoulder when your car isn't working
<headlight problem> and plowing into the back of the photo radar van?
Soon enough, it will cause a big problem that the government will have
to take a look at the real situation and not all the green $$$$
photo radar represents.

---
E-Mail: [email-masked] <Shiloh Costa>
   WWW: http://www.io.org/~magic/samfox.html (Samantha Fox Home Page)
Usenet: alt.fan.samantha-fox

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 19:12:40 GMT

: > I think the police should encourage wreckless driving.

: Pardon moi!
:  
: > Fines for speeding DO NOT work.  Most everyone on the road speeds to a 
: > certain reasonable extent.  It just gives them some incentive to be careful.

: Gee, sounds like that incentive you are talking about proves my point. 

: Besides most police ignore "reasonable" speeding (5-10mph). If they don't,
: even I agree they're being pricks. I never wrote anyone until they were
: past 10mph over, (unless I really had it out for them, and there was
: nothibng else
: I could do) 

Lots of people get tickets for 10mph over.  Some people even get for a 5mph
when they're from out of state and unlikely to contest it.

Hmm never heard of photo radar?   What purpose does that have other
than to make money ?

If these dis-incentives REALLY worked, lots of government budgets would be
extra-pinched without the extra revenue generated from speeding tickets.

There are much more effective ways to discourage speeding, but this way
is more profitable.  Why can't you accept it?

: How do you know where they are going, or what they are doing, are you psychic?

I assume if they had an emergency to respond to, they'd put their strobes on.

: I don't see how an Emergency Vehicle can make an "illegal turn," or speed
: for that matter. Emergency Vehicles are exempt from most traffic
: regulations, with the stipulation that the driver uses "reasonable care"
: not to endanger others.

I guess just being given a badge makes you above the law?  We're not talking
about an Emergency situation here.

: Sorry, but the fact is in this instance (I know you're going to hate this, but)
: police are just allowed to do things, you're not.  

In what instance?  I said in general.  You've never seen a cop run a light
without his flashing lights / sirens on ? 

: That's NOT what I was talking about. I very clearly stated people who are
: so oblivious to what is going on that they can't hear a siren that's 10
: feet behind them. Beleive me, there are lots of them out there. 

Yes, but you were responding to my post, and that is what I was talking 
about.

: > I suppose the public is just "dumb shits" to you.  Most of us just want 
: > to get from point A to B in a reasonable and timely manner, and the State 
: > wants to make an extra $100 here and there.

: No I don't think everyone's a dumbshit. But I know from personal
: experiance that 
: "dumb-shits" comprise a higher percentage of the general population than
: most people would think!

This I now believe.

: Jamie-Andrea Yanak

---

From: [email-masked] (Shiloh Costa)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 15:02:43

>Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or [email-masked]

I think that with the new photo radar, they should be fair and allow
the use of radar detectors.  Why is it that the government can use
any form of technology they like, but the public is still in the
stone ages?
 
I say we should push for radar detectors and other equipment to have
a fair shot against photo radar, and intersection cameras.
 
You did hear that after photo radar the government wants to install
cameras at most major intersections, which take a picture when the
light is yellow, just before it turns red?  This way they can mail
you "failing to stop for a traffic signal" ticket.
 
They have justified this, by saying "a lot of accidents are caused
at intersections, not only will we catch people who run red lights,
but we can also have pictures of accidents just before they happened".
 
I think the government is getting ahead of themselves a tad.  Sure
technological-policing has it advantages, but what about the disadvantages?
How about *** BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVE ***?  It will
progressively get worse until one day we wake up one morning and
realize how much we have allowed our government to actually watch
us. (and store it on magnetic media, film, etc)

---

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 16:06:10 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jamie Yanak <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mark
>Bentley) wrote:
>
>I agree, that's not playing fair.

Not only is it not playing fair, it's unsafe.

>
>When I was a deputy, it was against State Law to use unmarked vehicles
>for "traffic enforcement." Vehicle had to have letters at least 6" high,
>prominently displayed and a *permanently* attached beacon. 
>
>It was also our department policy to have headlights on at all times, day
>or night, when stopped on the highway for running radar. 

I think your department is in the minority.  With few exceptions most of all
the cops who are working radar, that I've seen, are trying to hide as much
as possible.  I don't think they have figured out that a visible car is 
a deterent.  From a safety standpoint it is better to deter than to punish
after the fact.

>
>(we were very sporting, huh!) 
>

Yes, that was very sporting, but you still had the upper hand.

>Visibility was our objective in regards to traffic enforcement at that time. 

That's the way it should be.  

>
>But you know, I really don't think it contributed to any declines in the
>number of tickets you would write, when you followed these policies. Some
>people 
>are just that clueless.

Sad, but true.  These are the same clueless folks who sit in the left lane
doing 55 bolocing traffic.  I saw one of the clueless yesterday on my 
drive home yesterday.  I'm cruising along in the left lane, at a decent clip,
when a cop pulls out of a turnaround on my right.  He just jumps out without
stopping or slowing down much.  I immediately get off the gas and brake, 
releasing the brake when I know he can see my brake lights.  He proceeds to
get up to speed and approaches two cars in front of me from their blind
spot.  He then sits there for a moment.  The car in the left lane sees him,
after about a minute, and then slows down and pulls into the center lane.
The other car just keeps going about 10 over the limit.  The cop sits in the
blindspot and waits, and waits.  About 3 minutes later he cuts off the first
car that slowed down and pulls in behind the person not apying attention 
and pulls them over.  Clueless people should not be drving!  

-----------------                                                             
Alex     __O    '86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo                                    
       _-\<,_   '87 Alfa Romeo Milano                                       
      (_)/ (_)  '88 Vitus/Dura-Ace

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 15:43:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>I don't advocate 55mph speed limit. I think 65mph would be more reasonable.

I think 65 is not reasonable given the nive interstates we have and the 
cars that are now being made.  An upper limit of 85 is more reasonable.

>speeds *between* vehicles.  If everybody was doing 65mph there wouldn't be 

I agree with you that large speed differences can cause problems.  BUT, they
are not insurmountable.  Enforcing some basic rules is all it takes.  Left lane
for passing only and no passing on the right.  Easy rules to follow and 
remember.

>they would rather go faster, and begin changing lanes, and going around others,

If the people who want to go 55 stayed in the right lane, where they are 
supposed to be, then other people wouldn't be forced to work their way around
them.  Going 55 in the left lane is illegal, in some states at least.  So 
those people are not obeying the law!  They are being selfish.  

>So until the speed limit is 65mph, you are creating a hazard by exceeding it.

Not as much of a hazard as the guy who goes 55 in the left lane and won't move
no matter how nicely you signal him to.  If I am approaching a car going 
slower than me in the left lane I slow down and keep a safe distance and see
if he has any intentino of moving.  If he is not watching his mirrors and 
doesn't move, I approach his car and then back off again.  This is a nice
and polite way of asking him to move over.  If he still doesn't move then I 
will try flashing and if that fails then I will pass in the quickeset, safest
way possible.  Many times this means I am forced to pass in the right lane.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Bentley)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 22:47:19 GMT

Alex D Rodriguez ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >How do you know where they are going, or what they are doing, are you psychic?
: >I don't see how an Emergency Vehicle can make an "illegal turn," or speed
: >for that matter. Emergency Vehicles are exempt from most traffic
: >regulations, with the stipulation that the driver uses "reasonable care"
: >not to endanger others.

: If an emergency vehicle is not responding to an emergency, lights on, then 
: they have to obey the same rules everyone else does.  That's how an emergency
: vehicle can do all thoes illegal things.  Your response explains why we see
: so many cops breaking the law.  You either don't know, or don'twant to know,
: the law.  The law only applies when it is convenient for you.

At least or 'freind' with the badge has admitted what I've suspected for 
some time:  Cops are above the law.  Deal with it.

This morning, as I walked from the parking garage to the New Carrollton 
Metro station, I noticed a Maryland state police officer driving along 
the bus-only lane.  He pulled to the curb, his wife/significant other 
gave him a quick kiss, and she walked into the train station along with 
the rest of us slobs.  A big deal?  No. Responding to an emergency?  Ha. 
Do I like it?  No.  Will such attitudes ever, ever change?  Nope.

It happens 100,00 times a day, from speeding, to illegal turns, to 
parking in the handicap spots; cops can do whatever they please on the 
highways.

Hmm. If I had impunity, maybe I would too...

mb

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 15:53:26 GMT

>regulations, with the stipulation that the driver uses "reasonable care"

If an emergency vehicle is not responding to an emergency, lights on, then 
they have to obey the same rules everyone else does.  That's how an emergency
vehicle can do all thoes illegal things.  Your response explains why we see
so many cops breaking the law.  You either don't know, or don'twant to know,
the law.  The law only applies when it is convenient for you.

>"dumb-shits" comprise a higher percentage of the general population than

I think "dumbshits" on a power trip compromise an even larger percentage of
the police population than you want to admit to.  And that percentage is 
a couple of order  of amgnitude larger than the general population.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (John Anderlie)
Date: 25 Apr 1995 03:11:22 GMT

Rob,

Sorry, but I think you need to step up your research regarding when and how cops are dismissed
from their departments.  In my department, I was informed of a cop who recently lost his job for
having 2 accidents (non-fatal) within a relatively short period of time.  I am also told that a
cop will lose his/her job for running red lights and stop signs unless BOTH flashing lights AND
siren are on.  New hires are especially vulnerable to being dismissed.  Much depends on the 
agency you work for and whether the chief and public will tolerate unprofessional conduct.
Check it out.

John

My views are mine and mine alone.

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 01:39:26 GMT

Mark Bentley ([email-masked]) wrote:

: : If an emergency vehicle is not responding to an emergency, lights on, then 
: : they have to obey the same rules everyone else does.  That's how an emergency
: : vehicle can do all thoes illegal things.  Your response explains why we see
: : so many cops breaking the law.  You either don't know, or don'twant to know,
: : the law.  The law only applies when it is convenient for you.

: At least or 'freind' with the badge has admitted what I've suspected for 
: some time:  Cops are above the law.  Deal with it.

Well, we all knew this.  But it's disgusting when police  -- 
well, at least this one --patronize us about the "dangers" of our driving 
65 in a 55 (as soon as you exceed the speed limit, your car bursts into
flames because of wind resistance, thus causing billions of deaths each year)
, while they flaunt ALL traffic/driving laws as casually as easily as they
down giant mugs of coffee, and justify it by saying they have "Specialized
driving training".  This is just crap.

Hell, I would speed too, if I could get away with it, but I wouldn't be
as sanctimonious about being a tax collector with a glock.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 22:50 CDT

[email-masked] (David B. Feig) writes...

>But it's disgusting when police  -- 

Come on, give them a break.  Aside from the Untouchables, just about every
cop broke the law they were supposed to be enforcing.  They are human.  The
inhuman scum is in the seats of the legislature dictating the duties of the
cops and relegeting them to tax collectors.  I know of no cops who want to
be tax collectors, but it is a way to check for true crimes (the guy wanted
for the OK City bombing was picked up during a routine traffic stop), and
it lets the cities get income with out the spineless inhabitants of city
hall having to raise taxes.

>as sanctimonious about being a tax collector with a glock.

I speed all the time and have gotten away with it.  What makes you think
the cops are the only ones with Glocks? :-)

Marc

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Bentley)
Date: 25 Apr 1995 18:21:14 GMT

David B. Feig ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Hell, I would speed too, if I could get away with it, but I wouldn't be
: as sanctimonious about being a tax collector with a glock.

Agreed.

My 'attacks' on LEO's and their speed traps are sometimes intereperted as 
disrepect for those who chose this fine profession.  Nothing can be 
further from the truth.  It's a difficult job that doesn't pay very well, 
and one I would not have the stomach for.  Further, I recognize that any 
LEO foolish enough to admit that speeding tickets are issued for no other 
reason than revenue generation would have little future.  My only gripe 
is with those who preach to us, and repeat the basic horseshit about 
safety as if we're all zombies.

In other words, keep your mouth shut and I will assume respect, officer 
friendly.

Regards,
Bentley

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Bentley)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 22:39:10 GMT

<[email-masked]>
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: 

Shiloh Costa ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I think that with the new photo radar, they should be fair and allow
: the use of radar detectors.  Why is it that the government can use
: any form of technology they like, but the public is still in the
: stone ages?

As far as I know, only a few states and the Distict of Columbia outlaw 
radar detectors.  Are they completely illegal in Canada?

: light is yellow, just before it turns red?  This way they can mail
: you "failing to stop for a traffic signal" ticket.
:  
: They have justified this, by saying "a lot of accidents are caused
: at intersections, not only will we catch people who run red lights,
: but we can also have pictures of accidents just before they happened".

Actually I don't have a problem with the interesection cameras.  To hell 
with photo radar, which merely punishes people for travelling the same 
speed as everyone else.  But, to my knowlege, running a red light does no 
one any good and has tremendous potential harm.  From where I hail 
(Maryland) it is routine for three-five cars to pass through the average 
red (not yellow) light.

As for the recording of where you are, well, this is the electronic age, 
and if you don't run the light you won't get recorded! :)

mb
(follow-ups trimmed)

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 25 Apr 1995 15:21:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>some time:  Cops are above the law.  Deal with it.

You can deal with it or you can do something about it.  Cops work for you,
the tax payer, and so you can complain about them.  Let their bosses know that
they are doing something you think is inapproriate.

>Do I like it?  No.  Will such attitudes ever, ever change?  Nope.

If you don't do anything about it, things won't change.  Take down the police
car number, the time of day, and get a good look at the cop.  Then go down to
the local police department and ask to speak the person in charge.  Tell them
the story and what you saw the police man doing wrong.  Explain that this 
reflects poorly on all cops.  Be polite and ask that they call you back and
let you know what was done.  If nothing gets done, then it is time to work 
your way up the political ladder.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew P. Bajorinas)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 14:28:25 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (Mark Bentley) wrote:

]
]At least or 'freind' with the badge has admitted what I've suspected for 
]some time:  Cops are above the law.  Deal with it.
]
]This morning, as I walked from the parking garage to the New Carrollton 
]Metro station, I noticed a Maryland state police officer driving along 
]the bus-only lane.  He pulled to the curb, his wife/significant other 
]gave him a quick kiss, and she walked into the train station along with 
]the rest of us slobs.  A big deal?  No. Responding to an emergency?  Ha. 
]Do I like it?  No.  Will such attitudes ever, ever change?  Nope.
]
]It happens 100,00 times a day, from speeding, to illegal turns, to 
]parking in the handicap spots; cops can do whatever they please on the 
]highways.
]
]Hmm. If I had impunity, maybe I would too...
]
]mb

All this crap right in the faces of "regular people" and then cops wonder why the public 
doesn't always support them. Geez. 

Maybe police would be better respected and trusted if they deserved it! What a concept!

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew P. Bajorinas                          [email-masked] |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The above opinions are my own.          |      I will never let my cat |
| My employer thinks I am working. 8^)    |     use my net access again! |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 18:01:54 -0400

> the law.  The law only applies when it is convenient for you.

First of all it just doesn't seem to be sinking in for you: These things are 
NOT ILLEGAL for an emergency vehicle. Second of all: Your spelling is starting 
to deteriorate again:)

There are plenty of reasons cops have for exceeding speed limits, and short-
cutting traffic regulations w/out having lights & sirens on, for example:

-Responding to Burglary Alarms & Bank Alarms: Lest the bad guys hear you
 coming (which can create a situation which not only endangers the officer, 
 but also the public, in a bank situation.)

-Responding to just about any other type of call where stealth is of 
 importance (As in most things, the element of surprise is important in police
 work)

-Trying to catch up to vehicles that may be kinda far away, w/out alerting
them    
 (if you think they might run, which can be even more dangerous if you give them
 the opportunity)

In short: I stick w/my original statement; You can't be sure what the
police are actually doing when they *appear* to you to be screwing around,
and driving unsafely. The vast majority of the time, they are responding
to an incident . 

> a couple of order  of amgnitude larger than the general population.

Well, I think this is YOUR basic problem to begin with. You just have an 
animus against cops.

J Y

*********************************************************************
 Jamie-Andrea Yanak    **   A pretty girl is an accident.
    CYBER-VIXEN        **   A beautifull woman is an accomplishment.
<[email-masked]>   **      **             **             **
*********************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:21:38 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:

> Then go down to the local police department and ask to speak the person
in     
> charge. Explain that this reflects poorly on all cops.

Not that I condone this sort of behavior, but that is a sure fire way in 
most police departments, to get your name on "the list." 

Every department has one, it's reserved for continual trouble makers, 
excessively annoying journalist's (who write or televise those cops
playing golf on duty stories), and of course people who make an attempt to
"police the police."

As I said, I don't condone it, don't like it myself, and am ashamed to admit
it, but it does exist.

Better advice: Anonymosly complain, by instead going directly to a city
council member or the like, *or better yet* call up one of those nosey
local TV Newspeople (if the infraction is serious enough). After all they
get *paid*
to have cops hate their guts, and have it out for them:)

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 28 Apr 1995 14:07:03 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>NOT ILLEGAL for an emergency vehicle. Second of all: Your spelling is starting 

It's not my spelling, it's my typing.  Really. :)  

> but also the public, in a bank situation.)

In this scenario run with lights only.  Shut your sirens off.  I rather have
someone run off with my property than have a cop hurt someone.  When you are
a block away, after you have gone through all intersections, shut the lights
off.  No one is going to bitch about that.  

> importance (As in most things, the element of surprise is important in police

Stealth is important.  Especially at night trying to catch the guy going 10mph
over the limit on an empty highway.  Causing a pileup because you didn't
have your lights on doens't get you there any faster or help your stealthness.

> (if you think they might run, which can be even more dangerous if you give them

I think the big light bar on the roof does a good job of giving you away.
Anyone who misses the light bar during the day is not going to see the lights
flashing either.

>and driving unsafely. The vast majority of the time, they are responding

I still don't take your word for it.  It comes down to either believing
what I have seen, or what you say.  I'm sure there have been a couple of times
when I did misinterpret a cops actions, but most of the time I have seen 
that the cops were just on routine patrol.  If they had been in a hurry they
would not have waited for the pedestrians to all cross the street before they
ran the light.  In the city, that is what I see them do most of the time.

>Well, I think this is YOUR basic problem to begin with. You just have an 

I generally have no problem with cops.  It's a dirty job I wouldn't want to
do.  I respect them for that.  I just don't like the attitude alot of them
carry.  This past weekend I got another example of a cop with an attitude.
I was in Atlantic City and they had some event on the boardwalk that cause
a huge crowd where you had to squeeze through to get by.  A young man is 
slipping through with his box in the air playing fairly loud.  Along comes
a cop and from 3 feet away yells an obscenity at him and tells him to "shut
that piece of shit off".  That was completely uncalled for and unecessary.
I have no animus against cops in general, it is the many specific instances
I have seen that lead me to dislike some of them.  Also the "dumshit" is
your phrase not mine.  I don't make it a practice to use such language.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:08:15 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
(Gumby) wrote:
 
> cop broke the law they were supposed to be enforcing.  They are human.

It's good to see that someone is sticking up for me around here,
well, sort of...I think:)

> I speed all the time and have gotten away with it.

Yes, but when you finally do get a ticket, will you look at it as fair
considering all the times you didn't get caught? Even if you think the
ticket was wrong?

> What makes you think

Good point. Another reason excuses for speeding don't always go over/are
excepted politely. Old saying: "No such thing as a routine traffic stop."
You never know who it is your stopping for speeding.

At times it can have a definate affect upon your adrenaline levels. Like
when your running traffic at 3:00am, all the other cars in your zone are
tied up on calls (meaning no back-up for you darling!), and a store was
just robbed 15 minutes ago. When all of a sudden, a car comes flying down
the road past you at 75mph, with no plates on it. *wonderfull* You catch
up, get it stopped, and have the honor of walking that (very long 20 feet)
up to their window (all the time wondering when someone may pop up from
the back seat, and point something at you *NOT THEIR FINGER EITHER*)... 

Only to discover its some fool, who's temporary tag fell down from the
back window. 

Of course, he has no idea why you don't beleive him/want to discuss it,
when he says "Uhh, really ossifer, I have to go to the bathroom, I didn't
realize I was going so fast, Are you sure your radar guns right, I was
just blowing the carbon out of my engine, It was that other car you must
have got us confused, I just came from the car-wash and was trying to dry
it off,...*Or, would you beieve...*
etc,etc, etc...

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 28 Apr 1995 02:43 CDT

[email-masked] (Jamie Yanak) writes...
>[email-masked] (Gumby) wrote:

>well, sort of...I think:)

I can't give outright compliments to anyone I don't know.  Cops are people.
No people are perfect.  Cops are just trying to do a job.  They can't help
if someone disagrees with a law they are enforcing, they still have to do
their job.  (is that better?  :-)

>considering all the times you didn't get caught? Even if you think the

Oh, I keep it at a speed where it won't go on my record.  I have been stopped
enough, but I have been lucky not to get a ticket.  (it is amazing how nice
cops can be if you tell them the truth and show a little respect :-)

>You never know who it is your stopping for speeding.

I've packed a firearm illegally.  I chose my law violations carefully, and
I always know exactly when I am violating a law.  I am aware of the
consequences, and I am prepared to face them.  (don't do the crime if you
can't do the time :-)

>the back seat, and point something at you *NOT THEIR FINGER EITHER*)... 

I'd love to have a job where I am supposed to hunt down people who have or
are committing a violent crime.  Sneaking up on an armed person, high on
crack, and yelling "FREEZE!!"  Ooh, how I envy you.

>Only to discover its some fool, who's temporary tag fell down from the

D'oh!

>it off,...*Or, would you beieve...*

Gee, I always get out of mine.  "Yes officer, I was speeding.  I am on my
way home.  Yes, Dallas, as it says on the license.  Yes sir, I'll keep it
under 65.  Thank you."  And a warning for 76 was issued.

Marc

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:59:23 -0400

> : some time:  Cops are above the law.  Deal with it.

I didn't say ABOVE the law. I said that while on duty they are EXEMPTED.
There's a BIG difference. Exempted is legislated permission. Above is something
else entirely, that implies were geting away with something, we're not 

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <David B. Feig> wrote:
> 65 in a 55

I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing, It wasn't meant that way, not that I'm
apologizing for what I said, just the way I said it. My attempt was to 
show that a simple thing like speeding can cause tragedies (like the one's
I've personally suffered) that are not readily considered by those
committing such a casual, and socially accepted act as speeding. Also,
after sufferring these tragedies, I was not entirely amused with the
*attitude* of some of the folks here towards speeding or police. In fact I
was offended.

>(as soon as you exceed the speed limit, your car bursts into

*Cute*   *giggle*

> down giant mugs of coffee,

I've never understood the publics pre-occupation, and source of amusement
concerning cops, coffee, and of course donuts! Is it some sort of jealousy
concerning the fact that donuts are the best food on earth, coffee is the
nectar of the gods, and cops generally get them both for free? (Burger
King too!) *grin*   Besides, what the hell else is open at 4:00 am!:)

> and justify it by saying they have "Specialized

It's not "crap," it's the truth.
 
> as sanctimonious about being a tax collector with a glock.

I didn't mean (nor do I think) I came off as "sanctimonious." And I have yet
to hear of a cop who as ever shot someone for not paying a traffic ticket.

J Y

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:53:38 MST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
>Date: 28 Apr 1995 14:07:03 GMT

>your phrase not mine.  I don't make it a practice to use such language.

In Arizona the law is pretty clear.  Police vehicles are not required to 
display any lights even when responding to emergencies but they ARE required 
to use a siren, bell, or whistle WHEN reasonably necessary.  So there's an out 
for that too.  They may ONLY 'break' the law when responding to an emergency 
or when in pursuit of a known or suspected violator.   None of those 
exceptions relieves them of the responsiblity to drive with due regard of the 
safety of all persons and they are not protected from reckless acts.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 23:12:24 -0400

> their job.  (is that better?  :-)

Yes, quite satisfactory...*big smile*

> consequences, and I am prepared to face them.  (don't do the crime if you

I didn't realize it was against the law to carry a gun in Texas...
                     
               *Jamie's patented dumb blonde look* 

In fact, I always kinda figured it was against the law to be caught w/out
one...*giggle*

You cowboy types are so...,so..., macho. (yeah that's it!) *swooning*...NOT! 
 
> crack, and yelling "FREEZE!!"  Ooh, how I envy you.

Well, like they say..."Everything's BIGGER in Texas." It's only logical 
that include the number of people in need of therapy.

But from my personal experience with Texas men, I've always wondered why
it doesn't include...*blushing*....well, you know what I mean:)

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Al DeVere)
Date: 28 Apr 1995 11:34:48 GMT

:  Mark Bentley ([email-masked]) wrote:

: > : At least or 'freind' with the badge has admitted what I've suspected for 
: > : some time:  Cops are above the law.  Deal with it.

: I didn't say ABOVE the law. I said that while on duty they are EXEMPTED.
: There's a BIG difference. Exempted is legislated permission. Above is something
: else entirely, that implies were geting away with something, we're not 

BULLSHIT!  I'll stand by a his statement.  Cops know that they are
above the law.  If a cop (or his SO) gets stopped for speeding, etc they
will be let off because they are a COP or (COP's SO).  I've seen it, I've
heard MANY cops talk about it, and I was let off also.  Don't tell me it 
doesn't happen.  Also, around here COPs are encouraged to drive their
marked police vehicles off duty.  Every day I see a few cops out
of uniform and they are speeding, etc.  Don't tell me their going to calls,
I've followed them for miles (at 75mph) and they are NOT going to calls.

: > and justify it by saying they have "Specialized
: > driving training".  This is just crap.

: It's not "crap," it's the truth.

No, it's crap.  Most of their "Specialized driving training" is
nothing more than a 2-5 hour classroom lecture and some time in a parking
lot/closed street driving around cones.  Some departments actually go
to *real* schools but most don't.  By that same thought, would let me
off because I've been to the "police" driving school, 3 ambulance
driving schools, 1 motorcycle driving school, and a race driving school.

I didn't think you would.....

:  
: > Hell, I would speed too, if I could get away with it, but I wouldn't be
: > as sanctimonious about being a tax collector with a glock.

: I didn't mean (nor do I think) I came off as "sanctimonious." And I have yet
: to hear of a cop who as ever shot someone for not paying a traffic ticket.

I repeat, I don't have a problem with cops who are fighting real crime.  I
would like to see cops spend more time chasing crooks, patroling 
local streets, etc and not sit all day writing speeding tickets.  I would
also like to see the cops who do write speeding tickets to spend some
time writing tickets for dangerous driving (changing lanes 3 @ a time, w/o
signals, running red lights, etc).  I respect the people who put their
life in danger every day, for very little money, with no respect from the
public.  What I see as a MAJOR problem is that a majority of the population
speeds, and therefore looks upon the police, not as protectors/etc, but
as the enemy.  The 55/65 mph speed limit on highways is another
prohibition problem.  Let the population make the determination for laws
not the government making laws to "protect us from ourselves."  It the
speed limits were reasonable and everyone (90%) followed them, then the
police would have more time to spend on other duties, and would return
to be the protectors/public servants/etc that the population should see
them as.

--
-Al

Al DeVere NREMT-P |     Email to: [email-masked] 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Insert std.disclaimer                       DoD# medic
 
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-Dean Martin

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Osborne)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 21:16:31 GMT

John Anderlie ([email-masked]) wrote:
# Rob,

You removed all trace of the article you are replying to but since the
References line says isgtec.com,  I'll assume I'm the "Rob" here :-)

# Sorry, but I think you need to step up your research regarding when and
# how cops are dismissed from their departments.

I doubt it,  I personally know a number of police officers from a number
of different police departments,  including my brother and an uncle ...

# In my department, I was
# informed of a cop who recently lost his job for having 2 accidents
# (non-fatal) within a relatively short period of time.  I am also told
# that a cop will lose his/her job for running red lights and stop signs
# unless BOTH flashing lights AND siren are on.

And a number of people complain ...  Yes, police officers will be
displined and fired - but only if the make a public spectacle of
doing something clueless - like getting into accidents.

Why are a couple police officers in the Metro area who had their firearms
discharge when they "stumbled" - killing black youths - still on the
force.  Why was a Quebec police officer who "accidently" fired 30 rounds
from his submachine gun through a hotel door killing two construction
workers inside never charged with murder?

Rob.

---

From: [email-masked] (Al DeVere)
Date: 28 Apr 1995 12:11:19 GMT

Jamie Yanak ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:
:  
: > If an emergency vehicle is not responding to an emergency, lights on, then 
: > they have to obey the same rules everyone else does.  That's how an emergency
: > vehicle can do all thoes illegal things.  Your response explains why we see
: > so many cops breaking the law.  You either don't know, or don'twant to know,
: > the law.  The law only applies when it is convenient for you.

: First of all it just doesn't seem to be sinking in for you: These things are 
: NOT ILLEGAL for an emergency vehicle. Second of all: Your spelling is starting 
: to deteriorate again:)

Then you don't understand the laws you are sent to enforce.  VA and MD
traffic regulations (and 99% of other states) state:  An emergency
vehicle is not an emergency vehicle until it's lights and sirens are in 
the ON position.  Now I agree that there are times when you don't want
them on, but when responding to the "bank" you only turn them off 2-3
blocks from the scene, not 2-3 miles.  You also are expected to use the
lights (no siren) as close as possible w/o notifying the suspects that
your coming.

: There are plenty of reasons cops have for exceeding speed limits, and short-
: cutting traffic regulations w/out having lights & sirens on, for example:

: -Responding to Burglary Alarms & Bank Alarms: Lest the bad guys hear you
:  coming (which can create a situation which not only endangers the officer, 
:  but also the public, in a bank situation.)

: -Responding to just about any other type of call where stealth is of 
:  importance (As in most things, the element of surprise is important in police
:  work)

: -Trying to catch up to vehicles that may be kinda far away, w/out alerting
: them    
:  (if you think they might run, which can be even more dangerous if you give them
:  the opportunity)

: In short: I stick w/my original statement; You can't be sure what the
: police are actually doing when they *appear* to you to be screwing around,
: and driving unsafely. The vast majority of the time, they are responding
: to an incident . 

No sometimes they are responding to an incident, most times they are 
not.

: > I think "dumbshits" on a power trip compromise an even larger percentage of
: > the police population than you want to admit to.  And that percentage is 
: > a couple of order  of amgnitude larger than the general population.

: Well, I think this is YOUR basic problem to begin with. You just have an 
: animus against cops.

No, a majority of cops think of the public as the enemy and are also
on a power trip.  COPs should not be above the law, they should set the
example.  As I said in an earlier post, the police are poorly thought
of by the general public because they are seen enforcing laws that the
public does not want and that they don't follow.  I think YOUR problem
is like many cops:  You went to school for 1-3 months and now think that
your beter than everyone else, and above the law.  Well, your wrong.

btw, I've not contested any of the traffic tickets I have received.  I
just pay them and then pay my insurance "adjustment."  I don't hate
cops because they are doing their job, I hate the "traffic cops" because
of they way some treat the public and because they think they are 
above the law.  I deal with the police almost every day due to my
volunteer work and I like many.   Just don't get on my case because
you believe that suddenly, because I'm driving 56 in a 55, that I'm
now a danger to everyone else.

--
-Al

---

From: [email-masked] (Geoffrey Welsh)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 95 17:22:47 EDT

> of different police departments,  including my brother and an uncle ...

First and foremost, we must realize that this thread crosses many 
jurisdictions with different federal, state/provincial, and local laws.

> doing something clueless - like getting into accidents.

I remember a couple of years ago a Hamilton, Ontario officer faced criminal 
charges for failing to stop before proceeding through an intersection while on 
a call.  He was charged because, in doing so, he hit someone. 

There's no middle ground; if no harm is done, it's kept secret.  However, if 
something does go wrong, they hang the cop involved.

No professional group can get away with that.  Heck, if it wasn't for doctors 
trying to keep doctors in line, and pilots trying to keep pilots in line, 
etc. we'd probably be as nasty as we are to professions that "stick together" 
like the cops do.  And I like to think that we wouldn't cheer so loud when 
some poor schnook who does what every other cop does gets caught doing it and 
is made an example of.

Cops do things like that *because they can*.  Strict enforcement of 
regulations like that and significantly less severe punishments would lead to 
a far better working relationship between cops & the public they 'serve'.

> workers inside never charged with murder?

Interesting cases; care to give more details, especially on when peace 
officers anywhere in this continent were issued fully automatic weapons? 

Geoffrey Welsh [email-masked], [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff
       We can only hope that people will outgrow the need for government
      before the government finishes outgrowing the need for the people.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Freedman)
Date: 1 May 1995 12:34:59 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, Robert Osborne <[email-masked]> wrote:
>force. 

   You mean the case where some cop was bored, so he burst into
a Sunday school class and shot the first black teenager he could find.
Disgusting. No wonder Dudley Laws/protests-R-us Inc. was upset.
 
   The official version claimed that the cop chased a suspect from a
2 AM burglary at an electronics warehouse. He cornered the suspect,
ordered him to turn around and, when ignored, reached out one hand to
turn him around. At that point he slipped and fired his gun. Gee,
who'd believe a story like that ?? Your version is far more credible.
 
   On a more serious note, every time that self-serving agitators
hijack an investigation into a police shooting for their own political
purposes, they waste an opportunity to contribute to procedures which
make arrests safer for officers and suspects.
 
   IMO Dudley Laws and his ilk are more concerned with revenge against
the officer involved and police in general than with building a safer
society. Of course, those who consider themselves outside of society
don't really care whether it's safe or not.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris T. Papademetrious)
Date: 1 May 1995 14:54:02 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>*attitude* of some of the folks here towards speeding or police. In fact I

 I think speeding, as a crime, is over-rated.  I live in Philadelphia,
and on the Schukyll Expressway here, if you're going the speed limit, your
life expectancy will plummet. I will admit that I speed all the time
(usually 75-85mph) when I think it's safe.  If other cars are on the road,
I'll keep it around 70mph, the average highway speed here.  At this speed,
I get passed about as often as I pass others.  Keep in mind the lousy
speed limit here is 55mph.
 
 Now if *I* had the chance, I would be an undercover unmarked police car
in an instant.  My goal?  Not to nab speeders, as the favorite target of
police seems to be.  No, it would be to nab all the complete driving
*ssholes on the road who seem to forget that they have turn signals, or
that they can't do triple lane changes every five minutes, or tailgate so
close it looks like they're being towed.  I don't think speeding is nearly
as dangerous as the incredible amount of reckless driving that goes on on
our highways.  Speeding is not the danger here.  I've seen accidents
happen around me on the highway, and I can't think of one that was
speeding related; they all involved someone just being stupid or unsafe
while driving.  This is what worries me.

>J Y

 - Chrispy

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 18:24:26 GMT

30001:@database-mac.oai.org>
Organization: Long Island Information, Inc.  (516-248-5381)
Distribution: 

: > Well, we all knew this.  But it's disgusting when police  -- 
: > well, at least this one --patronize us about the "dangers" of our driving 
: > 65 in a 55

: I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing, It wasn't meant that way, not that I'm
: apologizing for what I said, just the way I said it. My attempt was to 
: show that a simple thing like speeding can cause tragedies (like the one's
: I've personally suffered) that are not readily considered by those
: committing such a casual, and socially accepted act as speeding. Also,
: after sufferring these tragedies, I was not entirely amused with the
: *attitude* of some of the folks here towards speeding or police. In fact I
: was offended.

Well, I am sorry for your loss. Your attitute offends _me_ though, and
common sense in general.

Sorry, it is crap.  First of all, it takes NO training to exceed the
speed limit by 10 mph or so in complete safety.  It's still illegal.
Secondly, there are a number of civilian drivers out there with advanced
driving training that far exceeds that normally given to police officers.
It's still illegal for them to speed.  Lastly, from what I've seen
this training is not very sophisticated nor are its results very good.
Then again, how much time is devoted to high-speed driving in training?
Not very much.

It's only an immunity to traffic laws that allows police officers to
drive like anarchists. Training is just an excuse, and a weak one at that.

Yes, you came off as sanctimonious.  Re-read your original post.

: J Y

: *********************************************************************
:  Jamie-Andrea Yanak    **   A pretty girl is an accident.
:     CYBER-VIXEN        **   A beautifull woman is an accomplishment.
: <[email-masked]>   **      **             **             **
: *********************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 20:30:12 -0400

> cars that are now being made.  An upper limit of 85 is more reasonable.

The cars being made today? You mean these little 4 cylinder tin cans, that
blow apart like piniata's when they hit anything. Not to mention the wear
and tear on the engine at 85 mph. I'll never let you drive my baby! 

> for passing only and no passing on the right.  Easy rules to follow and 

Easy rules to follow and remember, huh...*very sardonic grin*

Like what didn't start this whole flame war, was the fact that you guys
don't want to follow the easy rules we already have. (they're called speed
limits guys).

But of course you'll follow these other NEW rules;)

> those people are not obeying the law!  They are being selfish.

Well,...Most of the interstates around me, have 40mph as the minimum.
Meaning you can legally do 40 mph on the highway. This means that all the 
people (in that right lane of yours) that get stuck behind a truck
that's trying to go up a hill should drive on the berm, instead of getting in
your way...*uh, huh* 

Doing 55 in the left lane illegal? Come on Alex, how can it be illegal to 
do the posted speed limit...*That's all I'm gonna say on that one,call me 
mercifull*

Were they're suppossed to be?...*giggle  From now on I will always refer to
the left lane: as the Alex D. Rodriguez Lane...*cross my heart* 

Or would you prefer "Expressway?"

> and polite way of asking him to move over.

There are those that would instead call this: "A nice polite way to 
ask for a Brake Test."...*Kaaaa..Ching!*

>If he still doesn't move then I 

You're forgetting. The guy doing 55 mph (whether he's in the left lane,
OR right lane) is doing the speed limit. 

I think it's kind of caddy for you to blame him for not allowing you to
easily break the law. If you got into an accident in such a situation, I
hope it 
wouldn't be they're fault.

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 22:31:10 -0400

> No sometimes they are responding to an incident, most times they are 

I really take exception to MOST. Lets compromise, I'll let you have...oh,
lets say...every once in awhile, how does that sound?

> COPs should not be above the law, they should set the example.

I couldn't agree with you more on that.

> As I said in an earlier post, the police are poorly thought
> public does not want and that they don't follow.

It WOULD be nice if we could ONLY follow the laws we WANT.

Myself, I've always had a big problem w/that Income Tax stuff, not to
mention Marijuana.

And hey! Why is murder illegal, I mean isn't there someone that everybody
wants to kill (Mr. Rogers),...or did I mean, doesn't everybody want to kill
someone?...*(it's hard being blonde sometimes)* 

>I think YOUR problem is like many cops:  You went to school for 1-3
months and >now think that your beter than everyone else, and above the
law.  Well, your >wrong.

I Don't think I'm a better person, but I KNOW I'm a better driver than most.

I know I wasn't above the law, but you gotta understand, when you are the 
law, it becomes kind of an abstract concept sometimes... 

I mean have you ever seen a police car pull over another police car and
give another cop a ticket? (there's a reason for this, think hard)

>Just don't get on my case because you believe that suddenly, because I'm
>driving 56 in a 55, that I'm now a danger to everyone else.

I have NEVER, ever, ever, given a ticket to someone for 1 mph over the 
speed limit. And I would *conditionally* agree that any cop that did was 
being unfair.  I was a cop for 6 years, and never heard of such a thing.
We gave everyone at least 10 mph. This is considered fair, when taking
into account differences in speedometers, hills, passing slower vehicles
etc.

(not to mention, heaven forbid, a screwed up radar-gun...*nah, couldn't happen*

Drive Safely Honey's, 

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 23:10:55 -0400

> It's not my spelling, it's my typing.  Really. :) 

Ok, ok, ok, I'll stop being (God help me...yuk) the Grammar/Spelling Police!
 
> off.  No one is going to bitch about that.

I'm glad YOU feel that way. However, were I was a cop (West Palm Beach County)
they were quite a bit more materalistic than you. When a burglar alarm 
was received, you were expected to be there yesterday. It is the same in many 
cities inhabited by very wealthy taxpayers. If it takes you more than 4-5
minutes to respond, the Lt's going to want to know why, and you'd better
have a good reason.

It's also not unknown for the "real slick" thieves/burglars to use spotters.
These guys can be blocks away, equipped with radio's, and scanners keeping
a sharp eye out for the responding cars. 

> Anyone who misses the light bar during the day is not going to see the lights

Hah!...You'd be surprised how oblivious people can be. It's the people who
do see the lightbar (because they're breaking the law, and they're looking
for it)
that you worry about it. The only thing they're worried about by that time is,
is it on or not, and is it after me?...When you're looking for a chase
(some cops are) you turn it on far away. When you're REALLY trying to get
someone
you're worried about stopped, you wait till your right on their ass (make sure
there's no question in their mind they're going down)

> ran the light.  In the city, that is what I see them do most of the time.

Now come on, there certainly not going to run a red light when there's
pedestrians crossing the street, lights & siren or not.

>I just don't like the attitude alot of them carry.  This past weekend I
got >another example of a cop with an attitude. I was in Atlantic City and
they had >some event on the boardwalk that cause a huge crowd where you
had to squeeze >through to get by.  A young man is slipping through with
his box in the air >playing fairly loud.  Along comes a cop and from 3
feet away yells an obscenity >at him and tells him to "shut that piece of
shit off".  That was completely >uncalled for and unecessary.

Alex, you never know the whole story w/something like that. I'm not saying
it's the case, but  it wouldn't surprise me if the kid was known to the
cop, and 
a regular troublemaker. I'm not trying to make excuses either, but how do you 
know how many times before, the kid was asked nicely? 

But I am willing to bet the kid turned it down, didn't he?

Certain people in this world don't respond to please, even from a supposed
authority figure. When you've been a cop for awhile, you learn to spot the
one's
who are going to require a more "forcefull approach."...*And then again,
sometimes your just having a crabby day!*

J Y

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 2 May 1995 12:05:48 GMT

>>and tear on the engine at 85 mph. I'll never let you drive my baby! 

Even the 'tin cans' made today are safer than cars from 10 or 15 years ago in a crash, and they
sure has hell handle *at least* as well.

>>don't want to follow the easy rules we already have. (they're called speed

These rules are easy to follow, but artificially low highway speed limits exist for
revenue enhancement and fuel conservation, the safety aspect is a crock.  You
don't need to drive slowly to drive safely.  People need to pay attention and
know the limits of their machine and their driving ability.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Legerlotz          <[email-masked]>
Digital Equipment Corporation

All statements are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of Digital Equipment Corporation.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 1 May 1995 22:18 CDT

>do the posted speed limit...*That's all I'm gonna say on that one,call me 

Ever heard of "slow traffic to the right?"  It is a law in some areas.
Slow is defined in relation to the other traffic, not in relation to the
speed limit.

Marc

---

From: [email-masked] (Cynthia)
Date: 2 May 1995 13:38:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>do the posted speed limit...*That's all I'm gonna say on that one,call me 

	It is illegal as one is ignoring several other laws, including
yeilding to passing/faster traffic, and improper use of the passing lane.

>OR right lane) is doing the speed limit. 

	In addition to breaking the law ( just as the one speeding ),
he's also compounding the problem by being a dangerous unattentive
self righteous driver. Next to drunk drivers, they're probably the
most dangerious class out there. [ off duty police officers are a 
subset of this one, m'thinks ].

--
Please note: This is Keith Ryan posting. Please direct any e-mail
response to either "[email-masked]" or "[email-masked]"

Any typographical or grammatical errors are due to the evil news
machine mulching my post ;)
-- 
--
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 18:50:08 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:

> Sounds like prejudice to me.  Until he tries please first he won't know.  What
> exactly is the clue that allows you to spot the trouble makers?  Race?  Color?
> Clothes?  Please tell me what it is.  I'm sure we all want to know.

Please, don't try to paint me as a racist. I'm not and I've never been.

I'll accept you calling it prejudice, because in the sense of what the
word means (pre-judging), yes that's what you're doing. But it's prejudice,
without all the *evil* connotations we've given that word over the years. 

Everytime, you or I make a decision we are using prejudice to a certain extent.
Prejudice is at its simplest, "learning from experience," and that is what
I was 
referring to. 

I wouldn't mind discussing this aspect w/anyone further (e-mail me if you
want), but I don't think rec.autos.driving is the appropriate forum. Up to
now we've managed to remain with things relevant to driving, but I think
this would be pushing it.

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 2 May 1995 15:57:18 GMT

>and tear on the engine at 85 mph. I'll never let you drive my baby! 

Those 4 cyclinder tin cans have more horse power than many V8 engines from 
the 70's and eighties.  They have higher top speeds and greater acceleration
rates too.  There is wear and tear on any car that gets driven.  If you think
85mph is too much wear and tear on your car, then you must have a pretty sad
car. :(  Get a real car where 85mph is just fine and dandy.

>Easy rules to follow and remember, huh...*very sardonic grin*

They are easy for me to remember and follow.  I try to stick to them as much
as possible.

>don't want to follow the easy rules we already have. (they're called speed

No, I don't like _SOME_ of the laws.  Specifically the unrealistic speed limit.

>But of course you'll follow these other NEW rules;)

I never said those rules were new, they just are not enforced any where near
as vigorously as speed laws are.  It would require a whole new train of 
thought in order to make those infractions as profitable as the current 
speed enforcement business is.

>that's trying to go up a hill should drive on the berm, instead of getting in

I'm not asking them to ride the berm, I'm asking them not to be selfish.  If
there is anouther car in the left lane going faster than they are, wait for 
the car to pass.  If you do jump out, then pass the truck as safely and quickly
as possible.  Use the stupid gas pedal!!!  The less time you spend side by 
side with a truck the safer off you are.  Why put me in the same predicament
you put yourslef in by sitting behind the truck going up the hill?  I 
pay attention to the road and other cars and can make sure I avoid those 
situations.  On the oft chance I missed a clue and did get stuck I don't
force my predicament on others.  I also make use of the gas pedal and make
sure I pass the slow moving vehicle as quickly and safely as possible.

>do the posted speed limit...*That's all I'm gonna say on that one,call me 

Check the law books.  It clearly states that the left lane is meant for 
passing, not for cruising.  I see the signs on the NJ roads I drive on that
says "NJ law.  Keep right, pass left".  That means that if the right lane
is not occupied, you are breaking the law by driving 55 in the left lane.
It's pretty sad when I have to explain the law to someone who is supposed to
be enforcing the law.

>the left lane: as the Alex D. Rodriguez Lane...*cross my heart* 

I'm not the selfish type, so you don't need to refer to it as such.  Just 
think of it as the passing lane.  That means everyone who is passing another
vehicle is welcome to use it.  Now that I have explained that to you, you can
share that with all your other friends who don't pay attention when they are
driving.  Just cause they are stuck with puny little cars that will wear out
if they drive 56mph or higher, doesn't mean they have to share theie misery
with the rest of us.  

>ask for a Brake Test."...*Kaaaa..Ching!*

Brake test all you want.  I find the idiots who won't move over are also the
ones who are scared to use either pedal with any force.  They won't step on 
the brake hard becuase it might wear out faster.  They won't step on the gas
because the engine will wear out faster.  Pass this along, if you don't drive
the car, it won't wear out at all.  Stay home.  Next time a police cruiser
tailgates me, I should do a brake test.  Let's see what happens then.

>wouldn't be they're fault.

I think it is being a hippocrite to say I am stopping someone else from 
breaking the law while they are breaking the law them selves.  I don't blame
others for things that are my fault.  I drive carefully enought that if some
idiot forces me to pass on the right, I will do so only when it is safe.
Be nice and _SHARE_ the road.  There is enough of it for everyone to play
at their own level without getting in each others way.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 2 May 1995 16:19:26 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>minutes to respond, the Lt's going to want to know why, and you'd better

There is not much you can do about the selfish people who only think of 
their property.  Many a very hefty charge for all false alarms, I've heard
that a large majority of those burglar alarm calls are false, would make the
taxpayers more understanding.

>a sharp eye out for the responding cars. 

The slick ones lookout man also knows what a police car looks like.  He will
recognize it with or without it's lights on.  The light bars and the easily
identified headlight signature give the cars away.

>do see the lightbar (because they're breaking the law, and they're looking

Actually, I'm not surprised that people miss the lightbar, they are the ones
that are a hazard to everyone else on the road.

>pedestrians crossing the street, lights & siren or not.

I can honestly say that I have not seen a police car run a light, without its
sirens on, while pedestrians are crossing.  They do wait, but when the peds
go by, they shoot right through.

>know how many times before, the kid was asked nicely? 

I'm sure he wasn't asked nicely within the prior ten minutes.  It took me ten
minutes to walk ten feet.  Also the cop had just walked out of a mall and 
the kid was walking down the boardwalk.  Also having told the kid before is
no excuse for being rude to everyone else.  If the cop had known the kid I'm
sure he would have used the kids name.  

>But I am willing to bet the kid turned it down, didn't he?

Yes he turned it off.  I'm sure he would have also turned it off if he had 
just asked him nicely too.  I'm glad he aske dthe kid to turn down his 
music, but now I have a bad picture of both the kid and the cop.  I think 
the kid and the cops are both jerks.  If I ever run into that cop again, I'll
know he has a serious attitude problem.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 19:27:41 GMT

.org>

: The cars being made today? You mean these little 4 cylinder tin cans, that
: blow apart like piniata's when they hit anything. Not to mention the wear
: and tear on the engine at 85 mph. I'll never let you drive my baby! 

Ever been to Europe? I guess not.  You'd be surprised what can do 85
all day.

:> I agree with you that large speed differences can cause problems.BUT, they
: > are not insurmountable.  Enforcing some basic rules is all it takes. 
: >Left lane
: > for passing only and no passing on the right.  Easy rules to follow and 
: > remember.

: Easy rules to follow and remember, huh...*very sardonic grin*
: Like what didn't start this whole flame war, was the fact that you guys
: don't want to follow the easy rules we already have. (they're called speed
: limits guys).

Jaime, I know you're from a different planet from the rest of us, a planet
where everyone drives 55, spells poorly and has poor grammar.  

But _most_ people speed here on Earth and yet still manage to obey
most of the other traffic laws, like stopping at red lights and going at 
green.  They speed reasonably because speeding laws are unfair.

: But of course you'll follow these other NEW rules;)

: > If the people who want to go 55 stayed in the right lane, where they are 
: > supposed to be, then other people wouldn't be forced to work their way around
: > them.  Going 55 in the left lane is illegal, in some states at least.  So 
: > those people are not obeying the law!  They are being selfish.

: Well,...Most of the interstates around me, have 40mph as the minimum.
: Meaning you can legally do 40 mph on the highway. This means that all the 
: people (in that right lane of yours) that get stuck behind a truck
: that's trying to go up a hill should drive on the berm, instead of getting in
: your way...*uh, huh* 
: Doing 55 in the left lane illegal? Come on Alex, how can it be illegal to 
: do the posted speed limit...*That's all I'm gonna say on that one,call me 
: mercifull*

Are you being merciful or just stupid?  You're pretty ignorant of the law
for a former officer.  First of all, in some states it IS illegal to use
the left lane for anything other than passing.  Maybe where he is, the
roads have a 65 mph limit. Thus, they should 
get out of the way of someone doing 55.

: Were they're suppossed to be?...*giggle  From now on I will always refer to
: the left lane: as the Alex D. Rodriguez Lane...*cross my heart* 

okay try "where" there and remember this when you say you're not patronizing
anyone.

: >If he still doesn't move then I 
: > will try flashing and if that fails then I will pass in the quickeset, safest
: > way possible.  Many times this means I am forced to pass in the right lane.

: You're forgetting. The guy doing 55 mph (whether he's in the left lane,
: OR right lane) is doing the speed limit. 

In some places.  If it is a passing only lane, eh should  get out of the way.

: I think it's kind of caddy for you to blame him for not allowing you to
: easily break the law. If you got into an accident in such a situation, I
: hope it 
: wouldn't be they're fault.

It's not up to citizens to enforce traffic laws.  When possible, it is only
polite to get out of the way of someone who wants to pass you.

: J Y

--
The quality of mercy is not strained.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 21:17:39 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:
  
>If you think 85mph is too much wear and tear on your car, then you must
have a >pretty sad car. :(  Get a real car where 85mph is just fine and
dandy.

I HAVE a REAL car, thank you. It's a very nice Chevy Lumina. But this
comment shows where some of this arguement is coming from, from you guys,
"get a real 
car," (mine is bigger than yours...get a grip, sure it is, I'm a woman I
don't even have one!)

> It's pretty sad when I have to explain the law to someone who is supposed to

Okay, I stand corrected on this point, I'm not familiar with New Jersey
Law. This is not a law where I live, and it wasn't when I was a police officer.

However, if the speed limit is 55, and you are passing someone who is
doing 55, YOU are still breaking the law TOO. Passing, like I said is for
going around vehicles that are unable to maintain the speed "LIMIT." I
emphasize the word
"limit," because that's what it is, the upper acceptable speed, NOT the required
speed on the highway.

> Brake test all you want.

I don't do things like that. (remember, I'm the one advocating safe driving)
But there's plenty of people on the road who will.

>I find the idiots who won't move over are also the ones who are scared to
use >either pedal with any force.  They won't step on the brake hard
becuase it >might wear out faster.  They won't step on the gas because the
engine will wear >out faster.

I don't agree. From my observations, it's guys playing macho games w/their
cars. (I will admit that some women seem to have a lot more testosterone
too these days though!) 

>Next time a police cruiser tailgates me, I should do a brake test.  Let's
see >what happens then.

What will probably happen will be: You'll get a ticket for "Failure to Avoid
an Accident." Or, "Reckless Operation." Or, if the cops mad enough to really
try out the skills of the city prosecutor's office: You can maybe be charged 
with: "Attempted Vehicular Assualt," and if you manage to cause an
accident it could even be "Assaulting a Police Officer," and or, "Assualt
w/a Motor Vehicle." If convicted of one of the later two, they are
probably felonies
in New Jersey (they are here) and you can spend a year in jail, and lose
your drivers license.

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 20:37:55 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (David B. Feig) wrote:

> for a former officer.

*Hummphh*... I suppose I'm supposed to keep up after 12 years,  w/all the
traffic regulations in the 51 States, and Canada...*Right*

>First of all, in some states it IS illegal to use
> roads have a 65 mph limit.

I'm not going to say this isn't so, but it wasn't in the state I worked
in, and isn't in the state I live now. The only thing along this line I'm
familiar w/is in Illinois, where TRUCKS must stay in the right lane except
for passing.

The roads where I live, have a 65 mph limit in certain area's too.  "Speed
Limit" means "maximum allowable speed." In other words people are not
"obliged" to get out of your way, they are also not obliged to do 65.
 
Since your so up on the law, I'm sure you're aware of the concept of
"speed appropriate to road conditions?"

This means that you are incorrect doing even 55, if the road condition,
"reasonably" warrants a slower speed. This is of course used generally
only when a wreck is caused. It is almost impossible to cite for
otherwise, and stand up in court, because it is relative to the skill of
the driver in question/opinion of the officer.  My purpose bringing it up
is to point out that this gives people the right NOT to do 65, or whatever
the maximum posted is. It also means that you, climbing up on someone's
bumper, because they won't get out of your way, are wrong. You can get a
ticket: "assured clear distance." Again, this one too is generally only
cited after an accident. 

As for me being "ignorant of the law," I don't doubt it so in some cases.
You however, are the typical "Amateur Laywer," it was always such a joy to
deal with, and be "enlightened" by the likes of your kind as to "the law."

>If it is a passing only lane, eh should  get out of the way.

I see...*blazing light shining from heaven upon me*...It's AGAINST the law
for the guy in the left lane to stay there, but it's okay for YOU to do 
65 mph, even though the speed limit is 55 mph.  You talk about cops thinking
they're above the law? What you just stated here is nothing less than
arrogant.  

> It's not up to citizens to enforce traffic laws.

No, it's not. Neither is defying and ignoring laws that one feels are unjust
the proper way to approach changing them in a free country. That's what
the Democratic Process is for. It protects me if I think 65 is to fast,
and dangerous (by giving you a ticket), and enables you to change the law
(by pursuing the matter w/your elected officials). 

If your response is to deny that, I must inform you that the state in
which I live's voters did just that, and made some highways 65. We did
this in defiance of the Federal Government, and lost valuable Highway
Funds over it. (Ohio)

If this is not possible in your state, then you'll have to accept the fact
that the majority of people where you live: do not agree w/you, or feel it
is as important an issue as you do, and stop blaming the police for
enforcing the laws that your fellow citizens have determined to be best
for all. To do otherwise,
<IMHO> makes you know different from anyone else who thinks they're "above the
law." 

>When possible, it is only polite to get out of the way of someone who
wants to >pass you.

....polite?...Polite?....POLITE?...Now, were going to talk about what's polite?
.....Puh, lease!

Is it polite to ride up on someone's rear end, flash your lights at them,
( oh, and by the way, are you one of those guys that blows the horn, and
flips the bird to people who finally you do get around when they're in
your way?) is that polite? Speeding itself is NOT polite, you are
endangering other people on the road w/out their permission, it's
impolite, it's anti-social, it's immature,
it's selfish.

Or how about this?...Is it polite to make that poor police officer get out on
the highway in the rain, to write you a ticket?...Just kidding, I know
you'd enjoy that:)

Polite would be to just follow the law like everyone else, and if there's 
a car in your way when you want to PLAY Steve McQueen, just learn to deal w/it,
like a mature adult.

> The quality of mercy is not strained.

Neither is ignorance, IT FALLS as if a God given right from some.

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 02:34:50 GMT

Jamie Yanak ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (David B. Feig) wrote:

: > Are you being merciful or just stupid?  You're pretty ignorant of the law
: > for a former officer.

: *Hummphh*... I suppose I'm supposed to keep up after 12 years,  w/all the
: traffic regulations in the 51 States, and Canada...*Right*

You should keep up on "the law" if you're going to lecture us about it.

: >First of all, in some states it IS illegal to use
: > the left lane for anything other than passing.  Maybe where he is, the
: > roads have a 65 mph limit.

: I'm not going to say this isn't so, but it wasn't in the state I worked
: in, and isn't in the state I live now. The only thing along this line I'm
: familiar w/is in Illinois, where TRUCKS must stay in the right lane except
: for passing.

Well, you learn something new every day.  Perhaps eventually this will 
include spelling.

: The roads where I live, have a 65 mph limit in certain area's too.  "Speed
                                                        "areas"
: Limit" means "maximum allowable speed." In other words people are not
: "obliged" to get out of your way, they are also not obliged to do 65.

: Since your so up on the law, I'm sure you're aware of the concept of
        you're
: "speed appropriate to road conditions?"

: This means that you are incorrect doing even 55, if the road condition,
: "reasonably" warrants a slower speed. This is of course used generally
: only when a wreck is caused. It is almost impossible to cite for
: otherwise, and stand up in court, because it is relative to the skill of
: the driver in question/opinion of the officer.  My purpose bringing it up
: is to point out that this gives people the right NOT to do 65, or whatever
: the maximum posted is. It also means that you, climbing up on someone's
: bumper, because they won't get out of your way, are wrong. You can get a

Who is climbing up on anyone's bumper?  The whole point here is driving
at a speed reasonable to road conditions -- which sometimes allows
more than 55, sometimes less.

And of course people can drive lower than the speed limit if they so 
desire ; they should simply try to stay in a lane where it will not
unfairly inconvenience other drivers who feel comfortable and safe driving
at a higher rate of speed.

: ticket: "assured clear distance." Again, this one too is generally only
: cited after an accident. 

: As for me being "ignorant of the law," I don't doubt it so in some cases.
: You however, are the typical "Amateur Laywer," it was always such a joy to
: deal with, and be "enlightened" by the likes of your kind as to "the law."

What would my kind be?  How do you know I am an amateur?

: >If it is a passing only lane, he should  get out of the way.

: I see...*blazing light shining from heaven upon me*...It's AGAINST the law
: for the guy in the left lane to stay there, but it's okay for YOU to do 
: 65 mph, even though the speed limit is 55 mph.  You talk about cops thinking
: they're above the law? What you just stated here is nothing less than
: arrogant.  

Nah, you just don't pay attention.  We were talking about a hypothetical
65 mph limit here, or at least I was.  Who knows what you're talking about.

: If your response is to deny that, I must inform you that the state in
: which I live's voters did just that, and made some highways 65. We did
: this in defiance of the Federal Government, and lost valuable Highway
: Funds over it. (Ohio)

Bully for you.

: >When possible, it is only polite to get out of the way of someone who
: wants to pass you.

: ....polite?...Polite?....POLITE?...Now, were going to talk about what's 
: polite?.....Puh, lease!

: Is it polite to ride up on someone's rear end, flash your lights at them,
: ( oh, and by the way, are you one of those guys that blows the horn, and
: flips the bird to people who finally you do get around when they're in
: your way?) is that polite? Speeding itself is NOT polite, you are
: endangering other people on the road w/out their permission, it's
: impolite, it's anti-social, it's immature,
: it's selfish.

Naturally, there are polite and impolite ways of doing everything.  You're
probably only associated with the latter, you being who and what you are.
If someone wants to pass me, I let them pass.  It's much smarter (a new
concept to you I am sure) to let them pass on the left rather than
being stubborn and rude and making them pass on the right, which is not 
as safe.

: Or how about this?...Is it polite to make that poor police officer get out on
: the highway in the rain, to write you a ticket?...Just kidding, I know
: you'd enjoy that:)

: Polite would be to just follow the law like everyone else, and if there's 

Oh that's right, in your world no one speeds aside from reckless 
maniacs.  I would take a look at , say, any highway anywhere in the U.S.
sometime.

: Neither is ignorance, IT FALLS as if a God given right from some.

I agree, you ought to pay attention more and know what you're talking
about before you post.  Maybe next time you can do a little better.

: J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Cynthia)
Date: 6 May 1995 11:55:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>car," (mine is bigger than yours...get a grip, sure it is, I'm a woman I

	The Lumina ( and many GM sedans ) are highly outdated and
unsophisticated, especially compared to other vehicles on the road.
Its right that many of them have a speedo with an upper limit of 85.

---

From: [email-masked] (Shiloh Costa)
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 22:10:28

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
>Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 22:31:10 -0400

>give another cop a ticket? (there's a reason for this, think hard)

I would love to see this happen - would make a good routine for a
movie (comedy).

---

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Sun, 07 May 1995 19:47:00 -0400

> What would my kind be?  How do you know I am an amateur?

Well,....being a REAL lawyer, certainly won't rate you any extra points:) 

> 65 mph limit here, or at least I was.  Who knows what you're talking about.

The 65 mph speed limit is NOT hypothetical, at least where I live.
I was talking about (that's how this all started Mr. Rocket Scientist)
the guys that started this thread, as a diatribe against police in general.

Why don't you go back and re-read some of the earlier post's.

> about before you post.  Maybe next time you can do a little better.

Oh,...boo, whooo...booo,...whooo!......*me crying*

I guess it's just back to alt.coffee.donuts for me:)

J Y

*********************************************************************
 Jamie-Andrea Yanak    **  Life is either a daring adventure,
    CYBER-VIXEN        **  or it is nothing. 
<[email-masked]>   **                        -Helen Keller
*********************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 4 May 1995 15:22:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>traffic regulations in the 51 States, and Canada...*Right*

The keep right pass left law has been in effect for a very long time in many
states.  Any state that doesn't have that law is way behind the times.  Having
people pass in all lanes is creating a dangerous situation.

>ticket: "assured clear distance." Again, this one too is generally only

Anybody who can't drive 65 in a clear dry road should not be behind the wheel
of a car!  Especially if they have to impose their drinving limitations on
everyone else.  Grow up!  You can't force everyone to play your game with 
your rules.

>they're above the law? What you just stated here is nothing less than

It is plain rude and stupid to sit in the passing lane oblivious to the 
hazardous condtion being created.  

><IMHO> makes you know different from anyone else who thinks they're "above the

You must be living in your own cocoon if you don't realize that the speed 
limit is broken by about 90% of the people on the road.  My fellow citizens
are the ones breaking the law, so I don't think they have determined them
to be appropriate.  If it were my fellow citizens who determined the law, then
the speed limit would be based on the 85th percitile rule, which it isn't.
This is the speed at which 85 percent of the people stay under.  Right now
the laws are based on arbitrary numbers some bozo pulled out of a hat.  There
was no basis for the 55mph number.

>impolite, it's anti-social, it's immature,

Lets talk polite.  If we are walking down the same street, a nrrow one, and you
run into a friend and stop to chat, is it polite to block the whole street and
make me wait until you are donw with your conversation?  You should pull off
to the side and let me continue about my business while you continue about
yours.  You keep insisting that speeding in and of it self is dangerous, it
isn't!  I am very familiar with my car, the roads I drive on, and my driving
ability.  I only go fast on familiar roads when conditions permit it.  I slow
down on unfamiliar roads.  If you can't go fast, don't do it!  Just don't
try to impose your limitations on others.  

>the highway in the rain, to write you a ticket?...Just kidding, I know

It's not meant to be polite, the officer is getting paid to do it.  He knew
what his job entailed and he did it by choice.  No, I don't enjoy gettin any
ticket no matter how inconvenient it is for the officer.  If it is 
inconvenient, I would be more than glad to let the officer just forget about
the whole incident and go back to his warm, dry cruiser. :)

>like a mature adul

I am mature about it.  I politly go up to the car and say, "Excuse me".  
Some people just don't want to listen.  They ignore me, talk about rude.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 4 May 1995 15:39:43 GMT

>car," (mine is bigger than yours...get a grip, sure it is, I'm a woman I

I'm sure your Lumina will do 85, but probably not much more. :)  The size of
my car is just fine thank you.  If fact you previously questioned my car,
the Omni GLH turbo.  Remeber its not the size, but how you use it that 
matters. :)

>But there's plenty of people on the road who will.

It sure sounded like you were encouraging the old "brake test".  I've been
brake tested a couple of times, and I've passed every test.

>in New Jersey (they are here) and you can spend a year in jail, and lose

Gee, just because it is a police officer he is allowed to tailgate me at will?
There have been instances where the officer just taligated me for a couple
of miles and when I did nothing to provoke hime, he just took off.
Or if I ever have an accident where I rear end someone I should blame them
for failing to avoid an accident.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  It was their 
fault casue they should have seen me on their bumper and should not have 
braked so hard.   I can hear the judge and jury laughing.  There is alot
of garbage on the road that would cause someone to brake hard suddenly to 
avoid.  That is one of the reasons there is s tailgating law.  You are 
always supposed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle infront of you.
I'm guessing that you think it's ok for the police to break this law too.

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 24 Apr 1995 15:43:36 GMT

-----------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Geoffrey Welsh)
Date: Sat, 06 May 95 12:48:26 EDT

> I Don't think I'm a better person, but I KNOW I'm a better driver than most.

A recent poll in Ontario revealed that over 80% of drivers considered 
themselves "better than average".

Maybe this reveals that 30% (at least) have overinflated opinions of their 
driving skills.

Or maybe this reveals that many people have overinflated opinions of 
themselves. 

Or maybe it reveals that many people don't have a clue what's going on in the 
world around them.

My bet is on "all of the above".

> law, it becomes kind of an abstract concept sometimes... 

It shouldn't, and that's the problem.  Cops may be the enforcement of the law, 
but politicians are make and remove laws; they "are the law" as much if not 
more than cops.

We should not have to tolerate any infraction of the letter of any law from 
either group.

> give another cop a ticket? (there's a reason for this, think hard)

That's too bad.  IA should have a traffic patrol touring the streets in plain 
wrappers handing out tickets and/or reprimands to cops who can't be bothered 
to obey the same laws that they hold like Bibles in front of us when they talk 
down to us mere mortal civilians.

> (not to mention, heaven forbid, a screwed up radar-gun...*nah, couldn't happe

Thanks to the photo-radar vans here in Ontario, the OPP have been mailing 
tickets for as little as 10 km/hr (6 MPH) to the *owners* of vehicles.

And you can be charged by mail, but you have to show up in person to plead 
"not guilty".  The New Democratic Party of Ontario passed a law saying 
allowing these exceptions to the basic principles of our legal system so that 
they could rake in millions every year in fines.

---

From: [email-masked] (Al DeVere)
Date: 28 Apr 1995 11:34:48 GMT

:  

--
-Al

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 15:48:58 GMT

: > Nah, you just don't pay attention.  We were talking about a hypothetical
: > 65 mph limit here, or at least I was.  Who knows what you're talking about.

: The 65 mph speed limit is NOT hypothetical, at least where I live.
: I was talking about (that's how this all started Mr. Rocket Scientist)
: the guys that started this thread, as a diatribe against police in general.
: Why don't you go back and re-read some of the earlier post's.
                                                       "posts"

You know, this "Stupid ex-cop" routine of yours is getting old. (okay,
perhaps it isn't a routine).  You were responding to my post, in which
I said for all you know, the road he is describing has a 65 mph limit.
Thus describing a hypothetical situation.  Duh.  You could have another
hypothetical situation describing a road with a 55 mph limit.  Roads
have different speed limits, which you may not have been aware of, being
a fairly unintelligent person.

Perhaps another ex-police officer out there will respond to this thread
and present law enforcement in a better (or at least smarter) light?
I don't find your refuting common knowledge (the Speed tax, called an
Energy tax in some areas) or common sense to be very illuminating.

I mean, they can't all be idiots, can they?

: > I agree, you ought to pay attention more and know what you're talking
: > about before you post.  Maybe next time you can do a little better.

: Oh,...boo, whooo...booo,...whooo!......*me crying*

: I guess it's just back to alt.coffee.donuts for me:)

Get that "super jumbo sized" coffee, that way you can make less trips
and spend more time collecting revenue for your local government.
Oh wait, you quit ..  well, if you stay at the D&D, maybe you can
get free refills all night?  

: J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:59:23 -0400

*Cute*   *giggle*

 

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Cynthia)
Date: 2 May 1995 13:38:47 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:21:38 -0400

in     

J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (David B. Feig)
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 02:34:50 GMT

Bully for you.

: J Y

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Yanak)
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 18:50:08 -0400

J Y