| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 01:38:32 +0000, air_odie
wrote: I used to do my daily driveing in an 81 can am with a sc502 which was navajo orange. HOT car HOT motor bad mofo driving style... not stlolen hot but sweet hot. I had a clarion auto pc and two thunderdomes in it which at the time I thought were gods gift to audio HAHAHA!!!, right?? well my dumb azz back then would jam everywhere and anywhere often time forget to put t tops on and got lucky everytime except for july 10th 1999. That night some doped up *** hooped into my car and took about 1 hour and a screw driver to finish off my dash and remove the brick known as the auto pc... he then hammered away at my trunk till it opened thats when he got his suprise and demise.. my older brother had just gotton back from a party it was like 3 am and he decided to bury a crow bar right threw the guys head and no **** he laid there bleeding to death with my brick at his feet and sub wires at hand... after about 5 hours and a court date for my brother 'justified homicide' I learned my lesson. I make no judgment... that's what courts are for... but, personally, as much as something might mean to me, nothing is worth taking a life except to save a life. Property can be replaced... that's what insurance is for. But killing someone is something you have to live with for the rest of your life. I had to do it in the line of duty, when there was no other choice, and that was bad enough. I doubt I could easily live with myself to kill someone, even a hopped up junkie, over a stereo, a car, etc. I hope I never have to find out. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:10:50 -0700, Spike wrote:
Even chrome bumpers were a pain for removal of stickers. Dry ice usually worked best. Freeze the adhesive and it crumbles. Speaking of dry ice, have you heard that it's being used as an alternative to sand-blasting or bead-blasting? You load up your blasting equipment with dry ice pellets, blast the part you're cleaning, and when you're done, the pellets evaporate into carbon dioxide. For car bodies, it sure beats the hell out of trying to vacuum the last little bits of blasting media out of all of the nooks and crannies before sending the car off to the paint shop. Of course, you still have to vacuum up the rust/scale/dirt that you were trying to remove in the first place, but that's better than trying to remove all that plus a few pounds of baking soda or walnut shells as well. -- Scott Gardner "The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an anonymous poster on cypherpunks list) |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
It would make sense.... and if it works that good.... I wish I had
thought of it..... I could use the extra change ta fill the tank... : ) On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:34:50 -0400, Scott Gardner wrote: On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:10:50 -0700, Spike wrote: Even chrome bumpers were a pain for removal of stickers. Dry ice usually worked best. Freeze the adhesive and it crumbles. Speaking of dry ice, have you heard that it's being used as an alternative to sand-blasting or bead-blasting? You load up your blasting equipment with dry ice pellets, blast the part you're cleaning, and when you're done, the pellets evaporate into carbon dioxide. For car bodies, it sure beats the hell out of trying to vacuum the last little bits of blasting media out of all of the nooks and crannies before sending the car off to the paint shop. Of course, you still have to vacuum up the rust/scale/dirt that you were trying to remove in the first place, but that's better than trying to remove all that plus a few pounds of baking soda or walnut shells as well. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"They'd go out for the evening, and come back to
find a bumper sticker on their car" I'd be SO ****ed!!! I'm one of those people who has absolutely no stickers on my car, not even for causes I support! To come back to my car and find a sticker on it supporting something/someone I didn't would infuriate me!!! ~Mister.Lull |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I'd be SO ****ed!!! I'm one of those people who has absolutely no stickers
on my car, not even for causes I support! To come back to my car and find a sticker on it supporting something/someone I didn't would infuriate me!!!" I think I would overreact. In fact, I'm sure I would. You see...I don't have any children. My cars are in essence the closest thing I have to a child. I am VERY VERY possessive of my vehicles. To the point of crazy-possessive. I once came out of the movie theater and found someone putting a flyer under my windshield wiper. Poor kid. I said something like "Don't ever touch my ****ing car again" and walked over and handed it back to him. He apologized. Clearly he was getting paid and clearly he never once thought about it in the way I do -- in that my car is MY SPACE. I don't like most people in my personal space and that goes for my car too. If I found a sticker on my car I'd most likely go straight to the company in person to yell at someone...anyone. Of course, the people that are usually present to be yelled at have nothing to do with what you want to yell about...in which case I'm usually very pleasant. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Even with kids (now grown) I've always been a car guy and touchy about
my cars.... but, I can deal with a flyer under the wiper as long as no damage is done. It's not hurting anything. Permanently or semi-permanently affixed is a totally different world. Of course, I also get ticked at idiots who smear Vaseline on my wipers, or mix battery acid and Vaseline together and put a nice gob of it under my door latch. Spuds in the exhaust pipe bum me out. So do fish on the block. Broken antennas deserve retaliation in kind. Stealing badges is another. My TransAM GTA had actual Firebird badges where other models had decals. My dad got me a set of decals of all the medals I was awarded in the service. They're for like a back window. I haven't even put those on. It's an invite to some anti-establishment type to trash my car. Same with decals of my law enforcement shield. No, I don't really want anyone messing with my car, but, I can't see going off on some poor guy who was hired for pennies to put out flyers in a parking lot. On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:06:03 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "I'd be SO ****ed!!! I'm one of those people who has absolutely no stickers on my car, not even for causes I support! To come back to my car and find a sticker on it supporting something/someone I didn't would infuriate me!!!" I think I would overreact. In fact, I'm sure I would. You see...I don't have any children. My cars are in essence the closest thing I have to a child. I am VERY VERY possessive of my vehicles. To the point of crazy-possessive. I once came out of the movie theater and found someone putting a flyer under my windshield wiper. Poor kid. I said something like "Don't ever touch my ****ing car again" and walked over and handed it back to him. He apologized. Clearly he was getting paid and clearly he never once thought about it in the way I do -- in that my car is MY SPACE. I don't like most people in my personal space and that goes for my car too. If I found a sticker on my car I'd most likely go straight to the company in person to yell at someone...anyone. Of course, the people that are usually present to be yelled at have nothing to do with what you want to yell about...in which case I'm usually very pleasant. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MZ" wrote in message ... Good point, though you are apt to find joy riders who are more likely to take what they think they can get easily, and they would expect higher end cars to be alarmed. Pro thieves will go for the gold. That's exactly right. And I'm sure you know as well as I do (actually, moreso), that most thieves are not pros. Most thieves are friggin' morons. A great many stereo/car thieves are stupid teenagers (redundant, I know). They're not always going to make the most logical choices when deciding what to steal. Case in point...my apt complex had a few vehicles broken into one night a couple years ago. They stole the Jensen CD player out of the car parked next to mine, and left my car (with a 7" touchscreen) alone. Why? Maybe they were afraid of the alarm? No, that couldn't be it, because they also broke into a Cherokee with an alarm. heh.. yep.. I had my car broken into last year, now get this, cd player in the dash, face on, key in the ignition, and the best part, door unlocked.. they broke the window on the unlocked door and stole 4 packs of cigarettes.. that's it.. go figure.. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
A nicotine fit can cause some people to act in very bizarre ways.....
There was a time when I smoked that I might have broken into a vehicle just to get a partial out of the ashtray..... well, not quite that bad, but.... LOL On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:51:54 GMT, "Dark1" wrote: "MZ" wrote in message ... Good point, though you are apt to find joy riders who are more likely to take what they think they can get easily, and they would expect higher end cars to be alarmed. Pro thieves will go for the gold. That's exactly right. And I'm sure you know as well as I do (actually, moreso), that most thieves are not pros. Most thieves are friggin' morons. A great many stereo/car thieves are stupid teenagers (redundant, I know). They're not always going to make the most logical choices when deciding what to steal. Case in point...my apt complex had a few vehicles broken into one night a couple years ago. They stole the Jensen CD player out of the car parked next to mine, and left my car (with a 7" touchscreen) alone. Why? Maybe they were afraid of the alarm? No, that couldn't be it, because they also broke into a Cherokee with an alarm. heh.. yep.. I had my car broken into last year, now get this, cd player in the dash, face on, key in the ignition, and the best part, door unlocked.. they broke the window on the unlocked door and stole 4 packs of cigarettes.. that's it.. go figure.. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
i feel sorry for all you.....i got 20 stickers on my car!!!! car audio r
die!!!!! i play my stereo ultra loud..... especially at malls..... if some1 should steal it..aahh its xmas from my insurance! 1 note my system its the most costly..no jl/rf/kicker/infinity. all pioneer/jvc/jensen/profile. and it shakes the very earth you stand on! |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sounds like a really nice system and, judging by the attitude of your
post, it seems to be being used by someone who has no respect for the rights of others. Of course, your post was rather trollish. May someone do unto you as you do unto them. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:13:12 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: i feel sorry for all you.....i got 20 stickers on my car!!!! car audio r die!!!!! i play my stereo ultra loud..... especially at malls..... if some1 should steal it..aahh its xmas from my insurance! 1 note my system its the most costly..no jl/rf/kicker/infinity. all pioneer/jvc/jensen/profile. and it shakes the very earth you stand on! Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, MZ. I had the impression he was both, but I could be in error
: ) Sometimes, I have to stop and wonder whether it's just my age and life experiences which give me the impression that respect and similar ideals learned from my parents, grandparents, church, and Boy Scouts are no longer acceptable traits. That it has become acceptable to take someone's life for "dissing" you, but heaven forbid you should respect the rights of others who may not wish to sit at a stoplight unable to hear their own radio, or have a conversation because the person in the vehicle alongside them has hit a 7 on the Richter scale. It actually seems to say more about their parents than them. Parents who either failed to teach them respect, or didn't love them enough to teach them. Somewhere, long ago, I read, 'if you want to see how well you did raising your children, see how theirs turn out.' I hate to say it but my parents Baby Boomer generation must have failed miserably... and the report on my own Age of Aquarius generation is about due. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:56:54 -0400, "MZ" wrote: Bob has become our resident troll over the past few weeks. He's either dumb as a rock or he's just trying to get a rise out of people. "Spike" wrote in message .. . Sounds like a really nice system and, judging by the attitude of your post, it seems to be being used by someone who has no respect for the rights of others. Of course, your post was rather trollish. May someone do unto you as you do unto them. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:13:12 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: i feel sorry for all you.....i got 20 stickers on my car!!!! car audio r die!!!!! i play my stereo ultra loud..... especially at malls..... if some1 should steal it..aahh its xmas from my insurance! 1 note my system its the most costly..no jl/rf/kicker/infinity. all pioneer/jvc/jensen/profile. and it shakes the very earth you stand on! Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know that you can blame their parents. Sometimes kids are just
kids: stupid. It's when they don't grow out of it that it becomes cause for concern. As for Bob Wald, by all appearances he's a teenager. He claims otherwise. If he's telling the truth, it's probably not something he should be admitting to. "Spike" wrote in message ... Thanks, MZ. I had the impression he was both, but I could be in error : ) Sometimes, I have to stop and wonder whether it's just my age and life experiences which give me the impression that respect and similar ideals learned from my parents, grandparents, church, and Boy Scouts are no longer acceptable traits. That it has become acceptable to take someone's life for "dissing" you, but heaven forbid you should respect the rights of others who may not wish to sit at a stoplight unable to hear their own radio, or have a conversation because the person in the vehicle alongside them has hit a 7 on the Richter scale. It actually seems to say more about their parents than them. Parents who either failed to teach them respect, or didn't love them enough to teach them. Somewhere, long ago, I read, 'if you want to see how well you did raising your children, see how theirs turn out.' I hate to say it but my parents Baby Boomer generation must have failed miserably... and the report on my own Age of Aquarius generation is about due. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:56:54 -0400, "MZ" wrote: Bob has become our resident troll over the past few weeks. He's either dumb as a rock or he's just trying to get a rise out of people. "Spike" wrote in message .. . Sounds like a really nice system and, judging by the attitude of your post, it seems to be being used by someone who has no respect for the rights of others. Of course, your post was rather trollish. May someone do unto you as you do unto them. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:13:12 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: i feel sorry for all you.....i got 20 stickers on my car!!!! car audio r die!!!!! i play my stereo ultra loud..... especially at malls..... if some1 should steal it..aahh its xmas from my insurance! 1 note my system its the most costly..no jl/rf/kicker/infinity. all pioneer/jvc/jensen/profile. and it shakes the very earth you stand on! Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I don't know that you can blame their parents. Sometimes kids are just
kids: stupid. It's when they don't grow out of it that it becomes cause for concern." You're absolutely right that kids can be stupid. However, I have to agree with Spike in that proper parenting is of PARAMOUNT importance. As a 10-year police officer I feel I have quite a considered opinion in saying that the state of today's parenting skills are so horrendous and responsible for so many of our society's problems. And it's not getting any better. It seems to get worse with each generation. The dysfunctional skills get passed on from generation to generation like a bad rumor gets spread from mouth to mouth - with each passing the rumor gets more and more dilluted and outrageous. If you were to ask me what ONE thing would change our society for the better in the most ways possible it would be to improve the quality of our childrens' upbringings. As contorversial as it sounds, I think people should have to have a license to reproduce. I mean, you have to have a license to drive, a permit to carry a firearm, an education to get a job, and so on. Yet one doesn't have to pass any test or demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever to reproduce....even though it's one of the biggest responsibilities we as a human race have. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I don't know that you can blame their parents. Sometimes kids are just
kids: stupid. It's when they don't grow out of it that it becomes cause for concern." You're absolutely right that kids can be stupid. However, I have to agree with Spike in that proper parenting is of PARAMOUNT importance. As a 10-year police officer I feel I have quite a considered opinion in saying that the state of today's parenting skills are so horrendous and responsible for so many of our society's problems. And it's not getting any better. It seems to get worse with each generation. The dysfunctional skills get passed on from generation to generation like a bad rumor gets spread from mouth to mouth - with each passing the rumor gets more and more dilluted and outrageous. If you were to ask me what ONE thing would change our society for the better in the most ways possible it would be to improve the quality of our childrens' upbringings. As contorversial as it sounds, I think people should have to have a license to reproduce. I mean, you have to have a license to drive, a permit to carry a firearm, an education to get a job, and so on. Yet one doesn't have to pass any test or demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever to reproduce....even though it's one of the biggest responsibilities we as a human race have. Tony All true, of course, but the point I'm getting at is that half the kids (an exaggeration, unless you're out in suburbia!) out there "booming" have upper-middle parents and an otherwise fine upbringing. It's more than just parents - this why you often see families with a good set of parents, one great kid, and one kid who's nothing but a problem. It often ends up being the kind of crowd the kid runs with and, frankly, how good he is at lying to his folks. Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it? |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
As with many ills of a society; not just ours in the west, but any;
how kids turn out is based on a variety of factors. Still, if parents imparted discipline (I know that's not pc today), and respect, many of the other aspects would fall in line. It must start early, and the best place is within the home. As I believe it was Karl Marx said, "give me a child until age six, and he'll be a communist for life." The same hold true for instilling manners, respect, discipline, etc, which will follow "most" children through adulthood. Now, as for the cell phone thing.... Driving is a risky activity at best. The best driver in the world must still deal with the worst. Cell phones, stereos, drinking coffee, etc, are all distracting activities. When you look down to change the CD, or your mind is on what the person on the cell phone is saying, you aren't concentrating on driving. In the time it takes to switch CDs or dial/answer a call, how far will your vehicle travel at 65mph? With full concentration, how long does it take the average person to react if the car ahead suddenly hits the binders? Even with so called "hands free" it is a distraction begging for trouble. Here in California, new teen drivers are not permitted to drive with friends in the car ( forget how it's worded) for the first year or something. The reason being that studies have shown that teens are easily distracted by simply conversing, especially with the stereo going, with their friends while driving. This alone has resulted in a higher number of accidents. Here locally, we have lost quite a number of our brightest high school students in this way prior to the enactment of the new requirements. Most, if not all, cell phones have voicemail, text messaging, etc. If you get a call, you can respond when it is safe to do so. If you need to make a call, the same applies. Rarely is there such an emergency as would require an immediate call to avert the loss of life or disaster. And in such case, where a bona fide emergency exists, the laws could be written in such a way as to excuse making a call. As for enforcement, I retired in 1988. There wasn't time or manpower enough back then to enforce all the laws. Just as with exceeding the posted speed limit... many times, as long as the pack was flowing smoothly, we took no action. But, if one driver was attempting to get ahead of the pack, especially if making numerous lane changes... that was the one who got pulled over. It's a matter of having to set priorities. Remember that in addition to routine traffic patrol, depending upon the jurisdiction, patrol officers must respond to robberies, accidents and many other situations. It's less a case of not caring to enforce the laws we have been sworn to enforce for the good of society, it a matter of having the time to do so. Of course, if I observed someone talking on the phone and driving erratically, or even sloppily, I'd pull them over. And if someone were involved in an accident and admitted being on the phone, I'd add that to any charges. (Of course, if they admitted that, then I'd be tempted to add a charge of being "too dumb to drive".) You'll also find officers who are selective based upon personal experiences. For example, officers whose concentration is on DUI's because someone, family, friend, co-workers; was maimed or killed by a DUI operator. Others are death on speeders (that may be jealousy... sorry.... cop humor). My active experience ended in 1988. I feel certain that with the increased driving population, combined with more laws added all the time, things have not gotten any easier. The seatbelt laws were in the same category. Unless a driver was operating with a seatbelt hanging out under the door, and you might be surprised how many you see like that, I didn't have time to look for those not in compliance. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:28:20 -0400, "MZ" wrote: "I don't know that you can blame their parents. Sometimes kids are just kids: stupid. It's when they don't grow out of it that it becomes cause for concern." You're absolutely right that kids can be stupid. However, I have to agree with Spike in that proper parenting is of PARAMOUNT importance. As a 10-year police officer I feel I have quite a considered opinion in saying that the state of today's parenting skills are so horrendous and responsible for so many of our society's problems. And it's not getting any better. It seems to get worse with each generation. The dysfunctional skills get passed on from generation to generation like a bad rumor gets spread from mouth to mouth - with each passing the rumor gets more and more dilluted and outrageous. If you were to ask me what ONE thing would change our society for the better in the most ways possible it would be to improve the quality of our childrens' upbringings. As contorversial as it sounds, I think people should have to have a license to reproduce. I mean, you have to have a license to drive, a permit to carry a firearm, an education to get a job, and so on. Yet one doesn't have to pass any test or demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever to reproduce....even though it's one of the biggest responsibilities we as a human race have. Tony All true, of course, but the point I'm getting at is that half the kids (an exaggeration, unless you're out in suburbia!) out there "booming" have upper-middle parents and an otherwise fine upbringing. It's more than just parents - this why you often see families with a good set of parents, one great kid, and one kid who's nothing but a problem. It often ends up being the kind of crowd the kid runs with and, frankly, how good he is at lying to his folks. Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it? Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what
police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it?" Not quite an easy answer, Mark. I've found that the older officers TEND to agree more that people shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive. Younger officers are more likely to take the opposite approach...I'm not sure if this has to do with a lack of experience or the fact that younger officers are more likely to have cell phones themselves. I for one agree with Spike that distracted driving is very dangerous, but I don't like the implications that pretty soon, it's going to be illegal to do pretty much ANYTHING if there's a chance it will cause an accident. While I agree that certain people aren't coordinated enough to talk and drive at the same time, I hesitate to agree that we ALL should be banned from doing so. And virtually every study I've read about concurs that a hands-free device does NOT decrease the chances of an accident vs. using the phone conventionally. Here in Washington the legislature is about to inact a law that will make cell phone use a secondary violation. When the seat belt law came out it also was a secondary violation (it has since changed to a primary). I always thought this was a very stupid law (secondary seat belt) because if the main purpose to impose a seatbelt law was to protect people, then why only enforce it if they happened to be doing something else wrong to begin with? At least with the cell phone law, if someone is talking on their phone and driving fine, then we can't bother them. If they're speeding or running a stop sign for example, maybe we can attribute that to their cell phone use and the deserve to get pulled over. (Of course, how many people speed and run stop signs that AREN'T talking on phones?) Anyway, I think at least where I work most of us are going to get real excited about going out and pulling people over just for talking on a cell phone. I think it will be more of a tool to use when appropriate under the right circumstances. And like Spike said, there's so much more to deal with than enforcing such a law to begin with. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
You could be right about older vs younger, but, generally, based on
personal experience, that's only when they have to start using a new technology. The younger offers are more open to change; to adopting new fangled tools. To this day, I still prefer a revolver and a well placed shot, to an auto with a 15 round clip. Most of us old guys resisted bulletproof vests, tasers, etc. But, it didn't take long before we were using them. Computers were that way as well. As for secondary vs primary, it goes back to manpower and money. There are only so many cops due to budget limitations. they can only handle so much. So, in order to get the funds to hire more people to deal with an increasing population and it's negative impact, revenue must be generated. So, someone says, 'well, if we passed this law we could catch a lot of people and those fines would pay for X.' In my early days, you didn't have DUI checks. It was up to the cop to spot them doing various things, pull them over, and find reason to go further. Now it's pull into the line. Next it will be seatbelt check lines or something similar.Maybe, like weapons, they'll be checking to see whether the cell phone is within reach of the driver, or locked in the trunk, separate from the battery. (You should see how the Japanese handle DUI checks.) Locally, we have even been drug into the No Smoking issue. When the law was first passed, law enforcement was never supposed to be involved with enforcing the no smoking law. We had a county official who was supposed to go around and check bars, restraints, etc, and she had a ticket book. He first outing, she went to a big truck stop. Tell truckers they can't have a smoke with their coffee. Before it was over, cops had to go with her on her checks. Seatbelts here were the same. We were not supposed to stop anyone just for that violation even if we could plainly see it. It was to be an added charge. However, money got tight, and seatbelt violations generated revenue. Not all that long ago, they tripled the fine for running a light. Without fixing the traffic flow, now you can be making a turn and be caught out in the intersection with half a dozen other drivers.... all subject to a fine, even though the light was green when the turn was initiated. Revenue. The nice thing about secondary is you can use it as a tool. Much as at 3 am on Tuesday morning you see a vehicle change lanes without using a turn signal. It's an excuse to pull them over and check for DUI, etc. As for the cell phones, etc, we both know that there are many who can't chew gum and see at the same time, let alone drive. Now, personally, that driver I could care less about. But those people do endanger children who ride with them and have no control over what happens. They also endanger all other people using the roadways. The problem is, you can't pick and choose who is capable of multi-tasking and who isn't from one minute to the next. You or I, with our training and experience, could be fine today, but due to a cold, domestic strife, medication, or whatever, may not be nearly as capable tomorrow. I agree. I dread each new law which restricts us even more. Personally, I am against the seatbelt law, the helmet law, the cell phone law, the no smoking law, etc. People should be responsible for their own actions, and government should not play mommy and daddy to adults. And what's next? The radio won't play when the car is in gear? Much as the navigation devices won't let even the passenger input information when the car is in motion. Will we next see a law which says both hands must be on the steering wheel at all times? Everyone I grew up with was raised in an era where you took your chances in what you did and you took responsibility for the outcome. We rode bikes without helmets, built downhill racers (or used cardboard boxes on hillsides), and much more. With rare exception, we survived. Now the law steps in and takes away that self responsibility, and the price for the law doing so is the surrender of another piece of our freedom. Law is necessary in order to prevent chaos, but too much law can kill the society it is there to protect. To be honest, I was proud of my career, and I would not have traded it for anything. But, I would not want to be a cop today. (Probably because donuts and coffee are out and bagels and lattes are in : ) Your job is far harder than ours was. I give a hell of a lot of credit to my daughter who was just sworn in, and her husband who has been a cop for a while. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:38:02 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it?" Not quite an easy answer, Mark. I've found that the older officers TEND to agree more that people shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive. Younger officers are more likely to take the opposite approach...I'm not sure if this has to do with a lack of experience or the fact that younger officers are more likely to have cell phones themselves. I for one agree with Spike that distracted driving is very dangerous, but I don't like the implications that pretty soon, it's going to be illegal to do pretty much ANYTHING if there's a chance it will cause an accident. While I agree that certain people aren't coordinated enough to talk and drive at the same time, I hesitate to agree that we ALL should be banned from doing so. And virtually every study I've read about concurs that a hands-free device does NOT decrease the chances of an accident vs. using the phone conventionally. Here in Washington the legislature is about to inact a law that will make cell phone use a secondary violation. When the seat belt law came out it also was a secondary violation (it has since changed to a primary). I always thought this was a very stupid law (secondary seat belt) because if the main purpose to impose a seatbelt law was to protect people, then why only enforce it if they happened to be doing something else wrong to begin with? At least with the cell phone law, if someone is talking on their phone and driving fine, then we can't bother them. If they're speeding or running a stop sign for example, maybe we can attribute that to their cell phone use and the deserve to get pulled over. (Of course, how many people speed and run stop signs that AREN'T talking on phones?) Anyway, I think at least where I work most of us are going to get real excited about going out and pulling people over just for talking on a cell phone. I think it will be more of a tool to use when appropriate under the right circumstances. And like Spike said, there's so much more to deal with than enforcing such a law to begin with. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spike, about secondary vs primary...I think it's a bit simpler than that.
I've seen it from the political aspect in Massachusetts, where I'm originally from. The only way they're able to pass the law to begin with is to try to sell it as secondary - "don't worry, it won't affect you unless you're stopped anyway." They realize it'll never pass as primary. Then, once it's implemented, they fight for it to be primary a few years later. Baby steps, you know? I've met many of the proponents of the seat belt law (across the aisle, so to speak), and they truly believe in it from a philosophical point of view. It's not about fundraising to them. At least to the voter and the activist. The politicians...well, that's another story. As for the cell phone deal, yeah it's a distraction. But let's face it...when we're driving down the road, we're not directly focused on driving unless it's NYC during rush hour, and maybe not even then if you've lived there a while. When we're driving, we're talking to our pals in the passenger seat, eating a burger, listening to the radio, changing CDs, thinking about whether or not to clean the gutters this weekend, we're tired after a long day at work...everything EXCEPT for the road. Because it's boring! Ever take a long trip without a radio and without a passenger? It sucks. If you're not careful, you'll get lost in your thoughts or feel the onset of dozing (hopefully deciding to pull into a rest stop!). Make the same trip with a passenger, a handful of good CDs, etc and it becomes a great trip. Anyway, my point is this: you can't legislate attentive driving. Skillful drivers will be able to have a conversation - either on the phone or in person, change the radio station, eat a burger and still drive safely. Women who...I mean...people who can't drive will have problems no matter what. Unless you're willing to outlaw all these things, you're not going to rid the roadways of distractions. And if you do that, then accidents caused by people falling asleep behind the wheel will reach an all time high. "Spike" wrote in message ... You could be right about older vs younger, but, generally, based on personal experience, that's only when they have to start using a new technology. The younger offers are more open to change; to adopting new fangled tools. To this day, I still prefer a revolver and a well placed shot, to an auto with a 15 round clip. Most of us old guys resisted bulletproof vests, tasers, etc. But, it didn't take long before we were using them. Computers were that way as well. As for secondary vs primary, it goes back to manpower and money. There are only so many cops due to budget limitations. they can only handle so much. So, in order to get the funds to hire more people to deal with an increasing population and it's negative impact, revenue must be generated. So, someone says, 'well, if we passed this law we could catch a lot of people and those fines would pay for X.' In my early days, you didn't have DUI checks. It was up to the cop to spot them doing various things, pull them over, and find reason to go further. Now it's pull into the line. Next it will be seatbelt check lines or something similar.Maybe, like weapons, they'll be checking to see whether the cell phone is within reach of the driver, or locked in the trunk, separate from the battery. (You should see how the Japanese handle DUI checks.) Locally, we have even been drug into the No Smoking issue. When the law was first passed, law enforcement was never supposed to be involved with enforcing the no smoking law. We had a county official who was supposed to go around and check bars, restraints, etc, and she had a ticket book. He first outing, she went to a big truck stop. Tell truckers they can't have a smoke with their coffee. Before it was over, cops had to go with her on her checks. Seatbelts here were the same. We were not supposed to stop anyone just for that violation even if we could plainly see it. It was to be an added charge. However, money got tight, and seatbelt violations generated revenue. Not all that long ago, they tripled the fine for running a light. Without fixing the traffic flow, now you can be making a turn and be caught out in the intersection with half a dozen other drivers.... all subject to a fine, even though the light was green when the turn was initiated. Revenue. The nice thing about secondary is you can use it as a tool. Much as at 3 am on Tuesday morning you see a vehicle change lanes without using a turn signal. It's an excuse to pull them over and check for DUI, etc. As for the cell phones, etc, we both know that there are many who can't chew gum and see at the same time, let alone drive. Now, personally, that driver I could care less about. But those people do endanger children who ride with them and have no control over what happens. They also endanger all other people using the roadways. The problem is, you can't pick and choose who is capable of multi-tasking and who isn't from one minute to the next. You or I, with our training and experience, could be fine today, but due to a cold, domestic strife, medication, or whatever, may not be nearly as capable tomorrow. I agree. I dread each new law which restricts us even more. Personally, I am against the seatbelt law, the helmet law, the cell phone law, the no smoking law, etc. People should be responsible for their own actions, and government should not play mommy and daddy to adults. And what's next? The radio won't play when the car is in gear? Much as the navigation devices won't let even the passenger input information when the car is in motion. Will we next see a law which says both hands must be on the steering wheel at all times? Everyone I grew up with was raised in an era where you took your chances in what you did and you took responsibility for the outcome. We rode bikes without helmets, built downhill racers (or used cardboard boxes on hillsides), and much more. With rare exception, we survived. Now the law steps in and takes away that self responsibility, and the price for the law doing so is the surrender of another piece of our freedom. Law is necessary in order to prevent chaos, but too much law can kill the society it is there to protect. To be honest, I was proud of my career, and I would not have traded it for anything. But, I would not want to be a cop today. (Probably because donuts and coffee are out and bagels and lattes are in : ) Your job is far harder than ours was. I give a hell of a lot of credit to my daughter who was just sworn in, and her husband who has been a cop for a while. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:38:02 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it?" Not quite an easy answer, Mark. I've found that the older officers TEND to agree more that people shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive. Younger officers are more likely to take the opposite approach...I'm not sure if this has to do with a lack of experience or the fact that younger officers are more likely to have cell phones themselves. I for one agree with Spike that distracted driving is very dangerous, but I don't like the implications that pretty soon, it's going to be illegal to do pretty much ANYTHING if there's a chance it will cause an accident. While I agree that certain people aren't coordinated enough to talk and drive at the same time, I hesitate to agree that we ALL should be banned from doing so. And virtually every study I've read about concurs that a hands-free device does NOT decrease the chances of an accident vs. using the phone conventionally. Here in Washington the legislature is about to inact a law that will make cell phone use a secondary violation. When the seat belt law came out it also was a secondary violation (it has since changed to a primary). I always thought this was a very stupid law (secondary seat belt) because if the main purpose to impose a seatbelt law was to protect people, then why only enforce it if they happened to be doing something else wrong to begin with? At least with the cell phone law, if someone is talking on their phone and driving fine, then we can't bother them. If they're speeding or running a stop sign for example, maybe we can attribute that to their cell phone use and the deserve to get pulled over. (Of course, how many people speed and run stop signs that AREN'T talking on phones?) Anyway, I think at least where I work most of us are going to get real excited about going out and pulling people over just for talking on a cell phone. I think it will be more of a tool to use when appropriate under the right circumstances. And like Spike said, there's so much more to deal with than enforcing such a law to begin with. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
No argument. Different way of putting it but essentially it's what I
said/meant. Most Chiefs of Police, whether they worked their way up to the position, or were appointed, etc, are still forced to be politicians fighting for every dollar they can get for their department. Agreed it's baby steps, but it's also dollars and cents. Same political mumbo jumbo they use to add a new "temporary" tax. It's supposed to end but when the time comes, they extend it, or they find a new use for it. After all, the public is already used to shelling out for it. I lived and went to junior high on Cape Cod (Bourne) back when JFK used to fly in on the weekends (dad was stationed at Otis AFB). The seatbelt laws may not be about funding so to speak but it is still a lot about dollars and cents. Many of the more liberal of my friends, are pro seatbelts and helmets because they think without such laws they will have to fund medical for "idiots who crash and burn". They see it as their tax dollars being siphoned off for fools. Yet, at the same time, they have no problem with a national health system, or funding medical, education, and other benefits for illegal aliens.... I have yet to figure that one out. Fifty four hours from Cincinnati, OH, to my driveway in Mojave, CA, alone... with a cassette deck that jammed up in IN, and half the time you couldn't find a decent radio station. Back then it was Ira Blue coast to coast. I even stopped in NM for a shower (sink), shave, and change of clothes at a roadside rest area. Walked in the house and crashed on the sofa for about 3 days. Yep.... I can identify. Believe me, I am NOT in favor of outlawing everything. I could live with cell phones being used, though I wish people would use some common sense and limit when they use them. I do not have a problem with laws like California's licensing laws for teens. Until their skills have had some time to develop, using a cell phone, etc, is far more dangerous than for the average driver. We've had so many funerals in the past couple of years prior to the law change, that it was insane. And these were the good kids getting killed in broad daylight during school lunch periods, etc. Not the bad seed. I will be the first to admit, I don't know the answers. I have some ideas, but..... On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:55:05 -0400, "MZ" wrote: Spike, about secondary vs primary...I think it's a bit simpler than that. I've seen it from the political aspect in Massachusetts, where I'm originally from. The only way they're able to pass the law to begin with is to try to sell it as secondary - "don't worry, it won't affect you unless you're stopped anyway." They realize it'll never pass as primary. Then, once it's implemented, they fight for it to be primary a few years later. Baby steps, you know? I've met many of the proponents of the seat belt law (across the aisle, so to speak), and they truly believe in it from a philosophical point of view. It's not about fundraising to them. At least to the voter and the activist. The politicians...well, that's another story. As for the cell phone deal, yeah it's a distraction. But let's face it...when we're driving down the road, we're not directly focused on driving unless it's NYC during rush hour, and maybe not even then if you've lived there a while. When we're driving, we're talking to our pals in the passenger seat, eating a burger, listening to the radio, changing CDs, thinking about whether or not to clean the gutters this weekend, we're tired after a long day at work...everything EXCEPT for the road. Because it's boring! Ever take a long trip without a radio and without a passenger? It sucks. If you're not careful, you'll get lost in your thoughts or feel the onset of dozing (hopefully deciding to pull into a rest stop!). Make the same trip with a passenger, a handful of good CDs, etc and it becomes a great trip. Anyway, my point is this: you can't legislate attentive driving. Skillful drivers will be able to have a conversation - either on the phone or in person, change the radio station, eat a burger and still drive safely. Women who...I mean...people who can't drive will have problems no matter what. Unless you're willing to outlaw all these things, you're not going to rid the roadways of distractions. And if you do that, then accidents caused by people falling asleep behind the wheel will reach an all time high. "Spike" wrote in message .. . You could be right about older vs younger, but, generally, based on personal experience, that's only when they have to start using a new technology. The younger offers are more open to change; to adopting new fangled tools. To this day, I still prefer a revolver and a well placed shot, to an auto with a 15 round clip. Most of us old guys resisted bulletproof vests, tasers, etc. But, it didn't take long before we were using them. Computers were that way as well. As for secondary vs primary, it goes back to manpower and money. There are only so many cops due to budget limitations. they can only handle so much. So, in order to get the funds to hire more people to deal with an increasing population and it's negative impact, revenue must be generated. So, someone says, 'well, if we passed this law we could catch a lot of people and those fines would pay for X.' In my early days, you didn't have DUI checks. It was up to the cop to spot them doing various things, pull them over, and find reason to go further. Now it's pull into the line. Next it will be seatbelt check lines or something similar.Maybe, like weapons, they'll be checking to see whether the cell phone is within reach of the driver, or locked in the trunk, separate from the battery. (You should see how the Japanese handle DUI checks.) Locally, we have even been drug into the No Smoking issue. When the law was first passed, law enforcement was never supposed to be involved with enforcing the no smoking law. We had a county official who was supposed to go around and check bars, restraints, etc, and she had a ticket book. He first outing, she went to a big truck stop. Tell truckers they can't have a smoke with their coffee. Before it was over, cops had to go with her on her checks. Seatbelts here were the same. We were not supposed to stop anyone just for that violation even if we could plainly see it. It was to be an added charge. However, money got tight, and seatbelt violations generated revenue. Not all that long ago, they tripled the fine for running a light. Without fixing the traffic flow, now you can be making a turn and be caught out in the intersection with half a dozen other drivers.... all subject to a fine, even though the light was green when the turn was initiated. Revenue. The nice thing about secondary is you can use it as a tool. Much as at 3 am on Tuesday morning you see a vehicle change lanes without using a turn signal. It's an excuse to pull them over and check for DUI, etc. As for the cell phones, etc, we both know that there are many who can't chew gum and see at the same time, let alone drive. Now, personally, that driver I could care less about. But those people do endanger children who ride with them and have no control over what happens. They also endanger all other people using the roadways. The problem is, you can't pick and choose who is capable of multi-tasking and who isn't from one minute to the next. You or I, with our training and experience, could be fine today, but due to a cold, domestic strife, medication, or whatever, may not be nearly as capable tomorrow. I agree. I dread each new law which restricts us even more. Personally, I am against the seatbelt law, the helmet law, the cell phone law, the no smoking law, etc. People should be responsible for their own actions, and government should not play mommy and daddy to adults. And what's next? The radio won't play when the car is in gear? Much as the navigation devices won't let even the passenger input information when the car is in motion. Will we next see a law which says both hands must be on the steering wheel at all times? Everyone I grew up with was raised in an era where you took your chances in what you did and you took responsibility for the outcome. We rode bikes without helmets, built downhill racers (or used cardboard boxes on hillsides), and much more. With rare exception, we survived. Now the law steps in and takes away that self responsibility, and the price for the law doing so is the surrender of another piece of our freedom. Law is necessary in order to prevent chaos, but too much law can kill the society it is there to protect. To be honest, I was proud of my career, and I would not have traded it for anything. But, I would not want to be a cop today. (Probably because donuts and coffee are out and bagels and lattes are in : ) Your job is far harder than ours was. I give a hell of a lot of credit to my daughter who was just sworn in, and her husband who has been a cop for a while. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:38:02 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it?" Not quite an easy answer, Mark. I've found that the older officers TEND to agree more that people shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive. Younger officers are more likely to take the opposite approach...I'm not sure if this has to do with a lack of experience or the fact that younger officers are more likely to have cell phones themselves. I for one agree with Spike that distracted driving is very dangerous, but I don't like the implications that pretty soon, it's going to be illegal to do pretty much ANYTHING if there's a chance it will cause an accident. While I agree that certain people aren't coordinated enough to talk and drive at the same time, I hesitate to agree that we ALL should be banned from doing so. And virtually every study I've read about concurs that a hands-free device does NOT decrease the chances of an accident vs. using the phone conventionally. Here in Washington the legislature is about to inact a law that will make cell phone use a secondary violation. When the seat belt law came out it also was a secondary violation (it has since changed to a primary). I always thought this was a very stupid law (secondary seat belt) because if the main purpose to impose a seatbelt law was to protect people, then why only enforce it if they happened to be doing something else wrong to begin with? At least with the cell phone law, if someone is talking on their phone and driving fine, then we can't bother them. If they're speeding or running a stop sign for example, maybe we can attribute that to their cell phone use and the deserve to get pulled over. (Of course, how many people speed and run stop signs that AREN'T talking on phones?) Anyway, I think at least where I work most of us are going to get real excited about going out and pulling people over just for talking on a cell phone. I think it will be more of a tool to use when appropriate under the right circumstances. And like Spike said, there's so much more to deal with than enforcing such a law to begin with. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hear ya. Cell phones annoy me. People have become attached at the ear
to them. Even within the past two years, it's gotten worse. Hit a college campus and try to find someone who's walking from one building to another and not on a cell phone. I don't really get it. But the last thing I want is for their stupidity to result in me getting a $50 ticket because I'm simply trying to call home to figure out whether or not to pick up dinner. As for kids...they just can't drive. I remember when I first got my license. No accidents (except for a minor bumper job at a light), but admittedly, that was luck, not skill. And yeah, kids get really stupid when you put more than one in a car. I'm not sure it's the distraction as much as the total disregard for safety. They're either showing off or just screwing around in the car when other kids are there. That law's probably a good one. Some people have suggested raising the driving age to 18, but a lot of kids actually have to work (not just for gas money) or important activities to participate in. Can't take their cars away. Not to mention the fact that a lot of kids graduate at 17 and begin college before their 18th birthday. Some states actually have provisions for teens younger than 16 to get their licenses (eg. young teen parents, etc), so.. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Spike wrote: No argument. Different way of putting it but essentially it's what I said/meant. Most Chiefs of Police, whether they worked their way up to the position, or were appointed, etc, are still forced to be politicians fighting for every dollar they can get for their department. Agreed it's baby steps, but it's also dollars and cents. Same political mumbo jumbo they use to add a new "temporary" tax. It's supposed to end but when the time comes, they extend it, or they find a new use for it. After all, the public is already used to shelling out for it. I lived and went to junior high on Cape Cod (Bourne) back when JFK used to fly in on the weekends (dad was stationed at Otis AFB). The seatbelt laws may not be about funding so to speak but it is still a lot about dollars and cents. Many of the more liberal of my friends, are pro seatbelts and helmets because they think without such laws they will have to fund medical for "idiots who crash and burn". They see it as their tax dollars being siphoned off for fools. Yet, at the same time, they have no problem with a national health system, or funding medical, education, and other benefits for illegal aliens.... I have yet to figure that one out. Fifty four hours from Cincinnati, OH, to my driveway in Mojave, CA, alone... with a cassette deck that jammed up in IN, and half the time you couldn't find a decent radio station. Back then it was Ira Blue coast to coast. I even stopped in NM for a shower (sink), shave, and change of clothes at a roadside rest area. Walked in the house and crashed on the sofa for about 3 days. Yep.... I can identify. Believe me, I am NOT in favor of outlawing everything. I could live with cell phones being used, though I wish people would use some common sense and limit when they use them. I do not have a problem with laws like California's licensing laws for teens. Until their skills have had some time to develop, using a cell phone, etc, is far more dangerous than for the average driver. We've had so many funerals in the past couple of years prior to the law change, that it was insane. And these were the good kids getting killed in broad daylight during school lunch periods, etc. Not the bad seed. I will be the first to admit, I don't know the answers. I have some ideas, but..... On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:55:05 -0400, "MZ" wrote: Spike, about secondary vs primary...I think it's a bit simpler than that. I've seen it from the political aspect in Massachusetts, where I'm originally from. The only way they're able to pass the law to begin with is to try to sell it as secondary - "don't worry, it won't affect you unless you're stopped anyway." They realize it'll never pass as primary. Then, once it's implemented, they fight for it to be primary a few years later. Baby steps, you know? I've met many of the proponents of the seat belt law (across the aisle, so to speak), and they truly believe in it from a philosophical point of view. It's not about fundraising to them. At least to the voter and the activist. The politicians...well, that's another story. As for the cell phone deal, yeah it's a distraction. But let's face it...when we're driving down the road, we're not directly focused on driving unless it's NYC during rush hour, and maybe not even then if you've lived there a while. When we're driving, we're talking to our pals in the passenger seat, eating a burger, listening to the radio, changing CDs, thinking about whether or not to clean the gutters this weekend, we're tired after a long day at work...everything EXCEPT for the road. Because it's boring! Ever take a long trip without a radio and without a passenger? It sucks. If you're not careful, you'll get lost in your thoughts or feel the onset of dozing (hopefully deciding to pull into a rest stop!). Make the same trip with a passenger, a handful of good CDs, etc and it becomes a great trip. Anyway, my point is this: you can't legislate attentive driving. Skillful drivers will be able to have a conversation - either on the phone or in person, change the radio station, eat a burger and still drive safely. Women who...I mean...people who can't drive will have problems no matter what. Unless you're willing to outlaw all these things, you're not going to rid the roadways of distractions. And if you do that, then accidents caused by people falling asleep behind the wheel will reach an all time high. "Spike" wrote in message .. . You could be right about older vs younger, but, generally, based on personal experience, that's only when they have to start using a new technology. The younger offers are more open to change; to adopting new fangled tools. To this day, I still prefer a revolver and a well placed shot, to an auto with a 15 round clip. Most of us old guys resisted bulletproof vests, tasers, etc. But, it didn't take long before we were using them. Computers were that way as well. As for secondary vs primary, it goes back to manpower and money. There are only so many cops due to budget limitations. they can only handle so much. So, in order to get the funds to hire more people to deal with an increasing population and it's negative impact, revenue must be generated. So, someone says, 'well, if we passed this law we could catch a lot of people and those fines would pay for X.' In my early days, you didn't have DUI checks. It was up to the cop to spot them doing various things, pull them over, and find reason to go further. Now it's pull into the line. Next it will be seatbelt check lines or something similar.Maybe, like weapons, they'll be checking to see whether the cell phone is within reach of the driver, or locked in the trunk, separate from the battery. (You should see how the Japanese handle DUI checks.) Locally, we have even been drug into the No Smoking issue. When the law was first passed, law enforcement was never supposed to be involved with enforcing the no smoking law. We had a county official who was supposed to go around and check bars, restraints, etc, and she had a ticket book. He first outing, she went to a big truck stop. Tell truckers they can't have a smoke with their coffee. Before it was over, cops had to go with her on her checks. Seatbelts here were the same. We were not supposed to stop anyone just for that violation even if we could plainly see it. It was to be an added charge. However, money got tight, and seatbelt violations generated revenue. Not all that long ago, they tripled the fine for running a light. Without fixing the traffic flow, now you can be making a turn and be caught out in the intersection with half a dozen other drivers.... all subject to a fine, even though the light was green when the turn was initiated. Revenue. The nice thing about secondary is you can use it as a tool. Much as at 3 am on Tuesday morning you see a vehicle change lanes without using a turn signal. It's an excuse to pull them over and check for DUI, etc. As for the cell phones, etc, we both know that there are many who can't chew gum and see at the same time, let alone drive. Now, personally, that driver I could care less about. But those people do endanger children who ride with them and have no control over what happens. They also endanger all other people using the roadways. The problem is, you can't pick and choose who is capable of multi-tasking and who isn't from one minute to the next. You or I, with our training and experience, could be fine today, but due to a cold, domestic strife, medication, or whatever, may not be nearly as capable tomorrow. I agree. I dread each new law which restricts us even more. Personally, I am against the seatbelt law, the helmet law, the cell phone law, the no smoking law, etc. People should be responsible for their own actions, and government should not play mommy and daddy to adults. And what's next? The radio won't play when the car is in gear? Much as the navigation devices won't let even the passenger input information when the car is in motion. Will we next see a law which says both hands must be on the steering wheel at all times? Everyone I grew up with was raised in an era where you took your chances in what you did and you took responsibility for the outcome. We rode bikes without helmets, built downhill racers (or used cardboard boxes on hillsides), and much more. With rare exception, we survived. Now the law steps in and takes away that self responsibility, and the price for the law doing so is the surrender of another piece of our freedom. Law is necessary in order to prevent chaos, but too much law can kill the society it is there to protect. To be honest, I was proud of my career, and I would not have traded it for anything. But, I would not want to be a cop today. (Probably because donuts and coffee are out and bagels and lattes are in : ) Your job is far harder than ours was. I give a hell of a lot of credit to my daughter who was just sworn in, and her husband who has been a cop for a while. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:38:02 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it?" Not quite an easy answer, Mark. I've found that the older officers TEND to agree more that people shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive. Younger officers are more likely to take the opposite approach...I'm not sure if this has to do with a lack of experience or the fact that younger officers are more likely to have cell phones themselves. I for one agree with Spike that distracted driving is very dangerous, but I don't like the implications that pretty soon, it's going to be illegal to do pretty much ANYTHING if there's a chance it will cause an accident. While I agree that certain people aren't coordinated enough to talk and drive at the same time, I hesitate to agree that we ALL should be banned from doing so. And virtually every study I've read about concurs that a hands-free device does NOT decrease the chances of an accident vs. using the phone conventionally. Here in Washington the legislature is about to inact a law that will make cell phone use a secondary violation. When the seat belt law came out it also was a secondary violation (it has since changed to a primary). I always thought this was a very stupid law (secondary seat belt) because if the main purpose to impose a seatbelt law was to protect people, then why only enforce it if they happened to be doing something else wrong to begin with? At least with the cell phone law, if someone is talking on their phone and driving fine, then we can't bother them. If they're speeding or running a stop sign for example, maybe we can attribute that to their cell phone use and the deserve to get pulled over. (Of course, how many people speed and run stop signs that AREN'T talking on phones?) Anyway, I think at least where I work most of us are going to get real excited about going out and pulling people over just for talking on a cell phone. I think it will be more of a tool to use when appropriate under the right circumstances. And like Spike said, there's so much more to deal with than enforcing such a law to begin with. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kids, and I should know because I think I recall being one once long
long ago in a land far far away.... have not learned fear. Not their fault. They just lack any experience which has introduced them to it. And they haven't pushed a car to it's limits and learned where the line is when the crossed it and crashed.... and survived to know the next time. Heck, many adult drivers have never done that. As a patrolman, I did (sans crash) on many occasions. When you go around a 90 degree curve and stare straight ahead at the Cal Trans guys working in it's apex throughout the turn, straighten out and keep going..... whew!!!! And the Cal Trans guys had eyes like dinner plates... LOL. I was 22 before I got my first real car. It was 5 years old. My step son got his first truck (a classic 65 Ford) which he could have restored and had a good solid vehicle when he was in high school. It wasn't good enough. He talked his mother into co-signing for a new truck. A year later he wanted her to do the same thing again because the "new" one was now old. She did. At least he lived up to his responsibilities and paid for it. One day he came home whining because he had run a red light and got pulled over and issued a citation. He blamed the cop although he admitted he ran the light. Now, he's really responsible, and his level of respect for others is fairly high. Yet, even he can't seem to accept that he did something wrong and there was a price to be paid. I didn't get my first ticket (one of only 2 in my life) until I had been driving for nearly 10 years.... and I deserved it. Both were so long ago that there is nothing on my record. On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:05:09 GMT, MZ wrote: I hear ya. Cell phones annoy me. People have become attached at the ear to them. Even within the past two years, it's gotten worse. Hit a college campus and try to find someone who's walking from one building to another and not on a cell phone. I don't really get it. But the last thing I want is for their stupidity to result in me getting a $50 ticket because I'm simply trying to call home to figure out whether or not to pick up dinner. As for kids...they just can't drive. I remember when I first got my license. No accidents (except for a minor bumper job at a light), but admittedly, that was luck, not skill. And yeah, kids get really stupid when you put more than one in a car. I'm not sure it's the distraction as much as the total disregard for safety. They're either showing off or just screwing around in the car when other kids are there. That law's probably a good one. Some people have suggested raising the driving age to 18, but a lot of kids actually have to work (not just for gas money) or important activities to participate in. Can't take their cars away. Not to mention the fact that a lot of kids graduate at 17 and begin college before their 18th birthday. Some states actually have provisions for teens younger than 16 to get their licenses (eg. young teen parents, etc), so.. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
I handled a rear-end (minor damage, minor injury) accident today at work.
The lady that did the rear-ending was talking on her cell phone when it happened. Just thought it was appropriate to our conversation. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
lol..a policeman trying to give advice.lol. as liars and thieves they
are. police shouldnt be allowed to testify in court. like they wont lie.lol plus they n the judge are buddies. if you ever go to court your first question should be judge do know this officer??? if he says yes move for a mistrail. the judges views are influenced by his working/friendship with the officier. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been hit while some was busy talking to his pal, and also backed into
while a guy was busy talking to his wife. Some places such as Ontario outlaw eating and drinking while driving. The time that it takes to change a CD vs a cell phone an average conversation is not comparable. A CD can be safely change at any red light while stopped. Right, and people only change CDs when they're at lights. And people never bother changing radio stations continuously. You can't deny it: the radio is a major distraction, both in terms of adjustment (finding cds/stations) and the music or talk radio that comes from it. How much attention to the road do you think people are giving when they're busy laughing at Howard Stern? I thought it was obvious that the radio/gps/etc is more of a distraction than cell phone use. You disagree? Some people can still operate a car while well over the legal drinking limit, does that make it acceptable? Yes. The problem, however, is that there's no way to quantify how well a person can do it. In my opinion cell phone use should be treated as impaired driving. There is no reason why people can't pull over and park while using there phone, Yes there is. and most cell phone plains come with handy voice mail. But I guess that has something to do with peoples up bringing, when they don't take other people's, along with their own safety into consideration. What makes you so certain that it's an impairment? For me, there's absolutely no difference between talking on the cell phone and talking to a passenger. I still eat McDonalds hamburgers even though it's technically an impairment. I still listen to the radio, change songs, etc. I still drive along sometimes deep in thought about what I plan to do at work the next day. Picking cell phone use to ban is arbitrary at best. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
i got stickers all over my car.i am a man.
and not afraid....HAHAHAhhahaHahAHAha |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
While it's quite true a CD can be changed at a red light..... how many
people do you know who wait until the get a red light? And what of the highways where there are no red lights? Wait until the next gas stop? So to say that cell phones and CDs can't be compared is both true and not true, depending on the person using either. I have a 10 disc CD changer, which is mounted in the trunk. It has roughly 3 hrs 20 min of music available. I have two cartridges for it. One is loaded with the set you see advertised on late night TV with Davy Jones.... and the other is a mix of many types of music. With a 14 gallon tank, and an estimated 14mpg (I'm hoping for a little better, or I may have to convert to EFI), I can cruise for roughly 3 hrs and 30 min before I have to stop for gas. A good time to switch cassettes in the changer, and/or reload a cassette with all new music, as well as stretch my legs. As for drunks... nearly any drunk who has not passed out can operate a motor vehicle. Recent studies have shown that alcohol impairment actually begins at a much lower level than the legal limit. The primary reaction times are reduced as is depth perception. In the "average" drinker (average being that most people may have a glass of wine with dinner, or a brew with the crew after work while regular drinkers consume more) is actually affected by a single drink, and the impairment escalates from there. Also, such factors as "frame of mind/emotional state", food consumption, etc, have been found to have a greater impact than previously considered. A close "relative" of the cell phone has been in use for decades, and little is said about when and where to use it with regard to safety. That is the CB radio. Granted, there is less involved in selecting a channel and conversing, although with properly set up speed dialing a cell phone should be less of a problem for users. And when it comes to stereos, it's not the old turn the knob until you lock in on a station. There are umpteen buttons to push to select what station or what song on a CD, etc. Many things are unsafe. Do we need laws restricting their use? I don't know. I really don't think so in every case. But, you can't write a law that says that Jane Doe is allowed to do something and Pete Smith is not. Either you have a law which covers all, or you don't have a law. Many laws on the books should never have been implemented. But, all to often, the public is led to believe that the numbers are much higher than they actually are, and therefore the problem is much more serious than it actually is. And there is part of the crux for enforcement. You can't enforce everything, so what do you enforce? What you (and it is often a judgment call) consider to be the most hazardous activity you see taking place. It may not be the speeder who is keeping pace with the flow of traffic, but the one who tries to weave in and out to get ahead of others. It may not be the person using the cell phone, who appears to be in control. Personally, every time I observed children not buckled in, or worse, sitting on someone's lap (especially the driver's) THAT was very serious. On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:18:49 GMT, (No-one) wrote: As for the cell phone deal, yeah it's a distraction. But let's face it...when we're driving down the road, we're not directly focused on driving unless it's NYC during rush hour, and maybe not even then if you've lived there a while. When we're driving, we're talking to our pals in the passenger seat, eating a burger, listening to the radio, changing CDs, thinking about whether or not to clean the gutters this weekend, we're tired after a long day at work...everything EXCEPT for the road. Because it's boring! Ever take a long trip without a radio and without a passenger? It sucks. If you're not careful, you'll get lost in your thoughts or feel the onset of dozing (hopefully deciding to pull into a rest stop!). Make the same trip with a passenger, a handful of good CDs, etc and it becomes a great trip. I've been hit while some was busy talking to his pal, and also backed into while a guy was busy talking to his wife. Some places such as Ontario outlaw eating and drinking while driving. The time that it takes to change a CD vs a cell phone an average conversation is not comparable. A CD can be safely change at any red light while stopped. Anyway, my point is this: you can't legislate attentive driving. Skillful drivers will be able to have a conversation - either on the phone or in person, change the radio station, eat a burger and still drive safely. Women who...I mean...people who can't drive will have problems no matter what. Unless you're willing to outlaw all these things, you're not going to rid the roadways of distractions. And if you do that, then accidents caused by people falling asleep behind the wheel will reach an all time high. Some people can still operate a car while well over the legal drinking limit, does that make it acceptable? In my opinion cell phone use should be treated as impaired driving. There is no reason why people can't pull over and park while using there phone, and most cell phone plains come with handy voice mail. But I guess that has something to do with peoples up bringing, when they don't take other people's, along with their own safety into consideration. Here are a few pictures and stories of the mayhem that cell phone cause on roads. http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/a...y/2-18-04.html http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/a...y/1-20-04.html http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/a...ry/5-9-04.html "Spike" wrote in message . .. You could be right about older vs younger, but, generally, based on personal experience, that's only when they have to start using a new technology. The younger offers are more open to change; to adopting new fangled tools. To this day, I still prefer a revolver and a well placed shot, to an auto with a 15 round clip. Most of us old guys resisted bulletproof vests, tasers, etc. But, it didn't take long before we were using them. Computers were that way as well. As for secondary vs primary, it goes back to manpower and money. There are only so many cops due to budget limitations. they can only handle so much. So, in order to get the funds to hire more people to deal with an increasing population and it's negative impact, revenue must be generated. So, someone says, 'well, if we passed this law we could catch a lot of people and those fines would pay for X.' In my early days, you didn't have DUI checks. It was up to the cop to spot them doing various things, pull them over, and find reason to go further. Now it's pull into the line. Next it will be seatbelt check lines or something similar.Maybe, like weapons, they'll be checking to see whether the cell phone is within reach of the driver, or locked in the trunk, separate from the battery. (You should see how the Japanese handle DUI checks.) Locally, we have even been drug into the No Smoking issue. When the law was first passed, law enforcement was never supposed to be involved with enforcing the no smoking law. We had a county official who was supposed to go around and check bars, restraints, etc, and she had a ticket book. He first outing, she went to a big truck stop. Tell truckers they can't have a smoke with their coffee. Before it was over, cops had to go with her on her checks. Seatbelts here were the same. We were not supposed to stop anyone just for that violation even if we could plainly see it. It was to be an added charge. However, money got tight, and seatbelt violations generated revenue. Not all that long ago, they tripled the fine for running a light. Without fixing the traffic flow, now you can be making a turn and be caught out in the intersection with half a dozen other drivers.... all subject to a fine, even though the light was green when the turn was initiated. Revenue. The nice thing about secondary is you can use it as a tool. Much as at 3 am on Tuesday morning you see a vehicle change lanes without using a turn signal. It's an excuse to pull them over and check for DUI, etc. As for the cell phones, etc, we both know that there are many who can't chew gum and see at the same time, let alone drive. Now, personally, that driver I could care less about. But those people do endanger children who ride with them and have no control over what happens. They also endanger all other people using the roadways. The problem is, you can't pick and choose who is capable of multi-tasking and who isn't from one minute to the next. You or I, with our training and experience, could be fine today, but due to a cold, domestic strife, medication, or whatever, may not be nearly as capable tomorrow. I agree. I dread each new law which restricts us even more. Personally, I am against the seatbelt law, the helmet law, the cell phone law, the no smoking law, etc. People should be responsible for their own actions, and government should not play mommy and daddy to adults. And what's next? The radio won't play when the car is in gear? Much as the navigation devices won't let even the passenger input information when the car is in motion. Will we next see a law which says both hands must be on the steering wheel at all times? Everyone I grew up with was raised in an era where you took your chances in what you did and you took responsibility for the outcome. We rode bikes without helmets, built downhill racers (or used cardboard boxes on hillsides), and much more. With rare exception, we survived. Now the law steps in and takes away that self responsibility, and the price for the law doing so is the surrender of another piece of our freedom. Law is necessary in order to prevent chaos, but too much law can kill the society it is there to protect. To be honest, I was proud of my career, and I would not have traded it for anything. But, I would not want to be a cop today. (Probably because donuts and coffee are out and bagels and lattes are in : ) Your job is far harder than ours was. I give a hell of a lot of credit to my daughter who was just sworn in, and her husband who has been a cop for a while. On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:38:02 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "Tony, while I've got you "on the line", so to speak, I was curious what police officers seem to think about the impending (or in some states, already active) laws banning cell phone use while driving. Here in New York state, I believe that the laws are already in effect but cops don't seem to be paying attention to them. I believe it's primary enforcement too, but I could be wrong. Is this an instance where they'd just as soon let you get away with it?" Not quite an easy answer, Mark. I've found that the older officers TEND to agree more that people shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive. Younger officers are more likely to take the opposite approach...I'm not sure if this has to do with a lack of experience or the fact that younger officers are more likely to have cell phones themselves. I for one agree with Spike that distracted driving is very dangerous, but I don't like the implications that pretty soon, it's going to be illegal to do pretty much ANYTHING if there's a chance it will cause an accident. While I agree that certain people aren't coordinated enough to talk and drive at the same time, I hesitate to agree that we ALL should be banned from doing so. And virtually every study I've read about concurs that a hands-free device does NOT decrease the chances of an accident vs. using the phone conventionally. Here in Washington the legislature is about to inact a law that will make cell phone use a secondary violation. When the seat belt law came out it also was a secondary violation (it has since changed to a primary). I always thought this was a very stupid law (secondary seat belt) because if the main purpose to impose a seatbelt law was to protect people, then why only enforce it if they happened to be doing something else wrong to begin with? At least with the cell phone law, if someone is talking on their phone and driving fine, then we can't bother them. If they're speeding or running a stop sign for example, maybe we can attribute that to their cell phone use and the deserve to get pulled over. (Of course, how many people speed and run stop signs that AREN'T talking on phones?) Anyway, I think at least where I work most of us are going to get real excited about going out and pulling people over just for talking on a cell phone. I think it will be more of a tool to use when appropriate under the right circumstances. And like Spike said, there's so much more to deal with than enforcing such a law to begin with. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was and is. I would be interested in knowing what the situation
was. City traffic? Intersection? Or open road? And do you observe a difference in the safety aspect of the differing conditions? On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:58:26 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: I handled a rear-end (minor damage, minor injury) accident today at work. The lady that did the rear-ending was talking on her cell phone when it happened. Just thought it was appropriate to our conversation. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"It was and is. I would be interested in knowing what the situation was.
City traffic? Intersection? Or open road? And do you observe a difference in the safety aspect of the differing conditions?" Both cars were stopped at a stop sign and then proceeded ahead. The first car then slowed down to make a right-hand turn into a driveway and the following car didn't have time to stop...due to inattention. She may have done the same thing even if she wasn't talking on the phone - who knows? She assumed that since they had just pulled away from a stop sign that the car in front of her was going to continue straight ahead instead of turning into a driveway about a half block down the road. I'm not sure what you mean by safety aspect of the different conditions. -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:07:26 -0400, "MZ"
wrote: Right, and people only change CDs when they're at lights. And people never bother changing radio stations continuously. You can't deny it: the radio is a major distraction, both in terms of adjustment (finding cds/stations) and the music or talk radio that comes from it. How much attention to the road do you think people are giving when they're busy laughing at Howard Stern? I thought it was obvious that the radio/gps/etc is more of a distraction than cell phone use. You disagree? I think we hit that one nearly word for word.... LOL Some people can still operate a car while well over the legal drinking limit, does that make it acceptable? Yes. The problem, however, is that there's no way to quantify how well a person can do it. Hmmmm. How do you mean "yes"? That it IS acceptable just because one can operate better than another when over the legal limit? If so, I would have to disagree. It should not be acceptable, IMHO, because the law can't pick and choose who to allow to get away with it. Additionally, let's say a parent is able to handle a vehicle quite well when blitzed. They set the example for the teen. Can the teen do as well then, or as they age? And what choice will the teen make if the parent says don't do as I do, do as I say? It sets a very bad example. In my opinion cell phone use should be treated as impaired driving. There is no reason why people can't pull over and park while using there phone, Yes there is. Agreed. For example, it's illegal to stop on the freeway for any reason, except breakdown... and actually, in some jurisdictions a motorist is actually in violation for breaking down, though I've never seen it actually enforced. However, if it were the law, there is no reason why a motorist can't wait to take or make a call. Text messaging, voice mail, and missed call notices are pretty much standard. Personally, I don't have a problem with the use of a cell phone for talking as much as I do for those who can now take pictures and send.... 'see, I'm passing the pizza place now, mom'.... or using it to type out and send messages.... or even surf the web. Much more concentration involved. and most cell phone plains come with handy voice mail. But I guess that has something to do with peoples up bringing, when they don't take other people's, along with their own safety into consideration. What makes you so certain that it's an impairment? For me, there's absolutely no difference between talking on the cell phone and talking to a passenger. I still eat McDonalds hamburgers even though it's technically an impairment. I still listen to the radio, change songs, etc. I still drive along sometimes deep in thought about what I plan to do at work the next day. Picking cell phone use to ban is arbitrary at best. It's all impairment. The question is the degree of impairment. It takes little concentration to take a bite out of a Big Mac.... UNLESS... a big gob of secret sauce hits the front of your shirt. Same with coffee, if you use the cup holder rather than chance it spilling hot liquid between your legs. You don't have to take your eyes off the road to hold a conversation, but it's common for people to do so to read the labels on the CDs, change stations, or dial a phone. And I'd rather someone punched in some GPS info than struggle with a paper map; trying to read one is bad enough for most people due to things like size of print, but then you have someone who is a neat freak and has a compulsion to try to refold it.... Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, you're a troll. Either you are totally ignorant, or full of crap.
In 20+ years of law enforcement, I have never known a judge outside the courtroom, and I have known very few attorneys outside the courtroom.... and the majority of those were defense attorneys. You had better change suppliers, 'cause you been gettin' some really bad ****. On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 09:48:22 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: lol..a policeman trying to give advice.lol. as liars and thieves they are. police shouldnt be allowed to testify in court. like they wont lie.lol plus they n the judge are buddies. if you ever go to court your first question should be judge do know this officer??? if he says yes move for a mistrail. the judges views are influenced by his working/friendship with the officier. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the discussion of using cell phones, perhaps any restriction should
be based upon some element of traffic conditions. In heavily congested areas, which might be posted, emergency only, while in light traffic areas, permitted. On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:27 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "It was and is. I would be interested in knowing what the situation was. City traffic? Intersection? Or open road? And do you observe a difference in the safety aspect of the differing conditions?" Both cars were stopped at a stop sign and then proceeded ahead. The first car then slowed down to make a right-hand turn into a driveway and the following car didn't have time to stop...due to inattention. She may have done the same thing even if she wasn't talking on the phone - who knows? She assumed that since they had just pulled away from a stop sign that the car in front of her was going to continue straight ahead instead of turning into a driveway about a half block down the road. I'm not sure what you mean by safety aspect of the different conditions. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're not a man or woman... you're a troll. you are now killfiled....
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:39:29 -0500, (bob wald) wrote: i got stickers all over my car.i am a man. and not afraid....HAHAHAhhahaHahAHAha Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
you are lying again.....all you go to the same window to pick up your
pay checks. you saying you never say hi???? |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some people can still operate a car while well over the legal drinking
limit, does that make it acceptable? Yes. The problem, however, is that there's no way to quantify how well a person can do it. Hmmmm. How do you mean "yes"? That it IS acceptable just because one can operate better than another when over the legal limit? If so, I would have to disagree. It should not be acceptable, IMHO, because the law can't pick and choose who to allow to get away with it. Additionally, let's say a parent is able to handle a vehicle quite well when blitzed. They set the example for the teen. Can the teen do as well then, or as they age? And what choice will the teen make if the parent says don't do as I do, do as I say? It sets a very bad example. Since you're a police officer, you wouldn't like my opinion on the matter because it would make your job a hell of a lot harder. But I think drunk driving laws are already a bit overblown, overprosecuted, and are essentially nothing more than an attempt to try to curb recklessness by a predictive indirect measure - sort of a "minority report" tactic. In many respects, it's become a scapegoat for pure stupidity. Hey, there's no question - drinking impairs your ability to drive. But so does cell phone use. And radio. I won't go into that whole thing again. You know where I stand. If I was dictator, I'd implement one road law: reckless driving. If you're exhibiting the symptoms of drunkeness, you'll violate this law. If you've got one hand around a hamburger and another on your radio's tuner, you'll violate this law too. You're being just as reckless in either case, so I fail to see why the charge for one is so severe but for the other a mere slap on the wrist. Look, this doesn't mean that I don't think the officer should attempt to measure the driver's level of intoxication as further evidence that the driver was impaired, but I don't think a driver's intoxication level alone should condemn him to DMV pergatory. And yes, I agree that many chronic alcohol abusers are dangerous on the roadways. But I think a lot of people need to change their driving habits, and the drunks are singled out. By the way, just so we're clear, I rarely drink and never drive after having done so. My concern isn't a personal matter; rather, it's just a call for consistency in the law. And let's not beat around the bush here. We know that, especially late at night and on weekends, it's not reckless driving that cops are after - it's alcohol/drugs/guns/warrants. If the roadway isn't busy, some cops will stop you for the most insignificant offenses, mostly to check you out. It's funny...I live in a small town and work very late nights. Every single week I pass through the center of town and have a police cruiser immediately jump on my tail and follow, oftentimes coming so close that I can no longer see his headlights (presumably, running the license plate through the computer). It's distracting, it makes me nervous, and if I don't know it's a cop I have no idea what kind of lunatic is driving behind me like that. I know he's doing his job, but I can definitely envision that sort of action inducing some erratic or even unsafe driving - especially in someone who may be less skilled or a woman who may be more easily frightened driving on a deserted road in a small town (if they don't know it's a police cruiser). I think this sort of strategy should be curtailed a bit and a more passive approach taken. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
"In the discussion of using cell phones, perhaps any restriction should be
based upon some element of traffic conditions. In heavily congested areas, which might be posted, emergency only, while in light traffic areas, permitted." Gotcha. I can see how talking on your cell phone on Interstate 5 through central California would be a lot safer than say downtown Seattle just due to the fact that there are so many more things to observe and make decisions about whenever there are other cars, traffic control devices, intersections, pedestrians, etc. around. It would be interesting to hear some data to back this up, if it exists. Tony -- 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2 Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lot's of open road around the country where it may be far less of a
problem than in the urban areas... A bit like one of the vehicle laws in Portugal.... It is legal to drive at night without lights as long as you are driving in a well lighted area. Well lighted is defined as any area where the street is illuminated by lights from windows of shops, bars, homes, etc. As soon as you leave those "well lit areas" you must turn your lights back on. Of course, you have to picture what driving there is like. Two lane roads, more often than not they are cobblestone, with stacked rock walls on either side, higher than a bus in some areas. So, you come to a 4 way intersection, with no streetlights, with your lights on if you're smart, and you nose out into the intersection until you can see if it's safe to proceed, when WHAM!, a bus with no lights removed the front of your car. Anyway, as regards cell phones, it might be a consideration in proposed laws. On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:36:16 -0700, "Tony F" wrote: "In the discussion of using cell phones, perhaps any restriction should be based upon some element of traffic conditions. In heavily congested areas, which might be posted, emergency only, while in light traffic areas, permitted." Gotcha. I can see how talking on your cell phone on Interstate 5 through central California would be a lot safer than say downtown Seattle just due to the fact that there are so many more things to observe and make decisions about whenever there are other cars, traffic control devices, intersections, pedestrians, etc. around. It would be interesting to hear some data to back this up, if it exists. Tony Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 23:37:19 -0400, "MZ"
wrote: Since you're a police officer, you wouldn't like my opinion on the matter because it would make your job a hell of a lot harder. But I think drunk driving laws are already a bit overblown, overprosecuted, and are essentially nothing more than an attempt to try to curb recklessness by a predictive indirect measure - sort of a "minority report" tactic. In many respects, it's become a scapegoat for pure stupidity. Hey, there's no question - drinking impairs your ability to drive. But so does cell phone use. And radio. I won't go into that whole thing again. You know where I stand. You might think differently if you were one of those required to a) deal with those who believe they are perfectly capable of driving in their condition, b) you had to deal with someone who has just wiped out a family, or a pedestrian, c) you have to make notification to a next of kin, d) you have to investigate the accident and clean up the mess. But maybe not. Only you would know how you might have a change of opinion. If I was dictator, I'd implement one road law: reckless driving. If you're exhibiting the symptoms of drunkeness, you'll violate this law. If you've got one hand around a hamburger and another on your radio's tuner, you'll violate this law too. You're being just as reckless in either case, so I fail to see why the charge for one is so severe but for the other a mere slap on the wrist. Look, this doesn't mean that I don't think the officer should attempt to measure the driver's level of intoxication as further evidence that the driver was impaired, but I don't think a driver's intoxication level alone should condemn him to DMV pergatory. And just who is going to make that determination? In this land of the happy lawsuits, if the officer determines the individual is fit to drive, and two miles down the road, the driver either wrecks himself, or takes out someone else... where do you think the liability will fall? It many places, once you stop an individual for DUI, you don't dare instruct them to pull the car over to the side of the road if they haven't already. If they happen to pull it over and roll into a ditch or whatever, the officer is then liable for having directed an impaired person to move the vehicle. And yes, I agree that many chronic alcohol abusers are dangerous on the roadways. But I think a lot of people need to change their driving habits, and the drunks are singled out. By the way, just so we're clear, I rarely drink and never drive after having done so. My concern isn't a personal matter; rather, it's just a call for consistency in the law. I agree there is an inconsistency, but what you propose essentially allows the driver to self determine whether they are safe to drive. As we all know, the ability to make rational decisions under the influence decreases rapidly with the amount consumed. I see no way this would work. And let's not beat around the bush here. We know that, especially late at night and on weekends, it's not reckless driving that cops are after - it's alcohol/drugs/guns/warrants. If the roadway isn't busy, some cops will stop you for the most insignificant offenses, mostly to check you out. It's funny...I live in a small town and work very late nights. Every single week I pass through the center of town and have a police cruiser immediately jump on my tail and follow, oftentimes coming so close that I can no longer see his headlights (presumably, running the license plate through the computer). It's distracting, it makes me nervous, and if I don't know it's a cop I have no idea what kind of lunatic is driving behind me like that. I know he's doing his job, but I can definitely envision that sort of action inducing some erratic or even unsafe driving - especially in someone who may be less skilled or a woman who may be more easily frightened driving on a deserted road in a small town (if they don't know it's a police cruiser). I think this sort of strategy should be curtailed a bit and a more passive approach taken. So, what do we do.... just cruise around until we find a vehicle rolled in a ditch, or worse, before we check them out? Make no mistake, I do not support getting on someone's rear bumper and following until the screw up, because everyone will eventually, whether nervous or not, commit an offense, even if it's some obscure law nobody has heard of since vehicles first carried people. And, I spent years training my people to watch for things at night, like changing lanes without using a signal, same with making a turn, etc, crossing the center line, but not to be compelled to make a stop. First judge on how serious the actions are in relation to other traffic (not counting my patrolman's vehicle). If it's serious, or if it's repeatedly committed, like drifting off the shoulder, then make the stop and check them out. It may just be that the driver worked a double shift, and is half asleep. The stop may wake them up enough to make it home alive. You might be surprised at the numbers of letters we received from people who, even DUI, thanked one of my troopers for getting their attention. You complain that law enforcement is too active. Many people do. And many of those same people will be the first to scream holy hell because the cops didn't stop something before it happened. Like, 'my kids would still be alive if you had taken that SOB drunk off the road.' kind of reaction. We're either reactive (responding to something which has happened), or proactive (trying to head off something before it happens). In either case, some portion of the public finds fault with how we do our jobs. The jobs those same people hire us to do, but to someone else.... not them. If you come up with a way we can meet the needs of all the people we work for... speak up. We'd like to know how we can be all things to all people; victim, violator, etc. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since you're a police officer, you wouldn't like my opinion on the matter
because it would make your job a hell of a lot harder. But I think drunk driving laws are already a bit overblown, overprosecuted, and are essentially nothing more than an attempt to try to curb recklessness by a predictive indirect measure - sort of a "minority report" tactic. In many respects, it's become a scapegoat for pure stupidity. Hey, there's no question - drinking impairs your ability to drive. But so does cell phone use. And radio. I won't go into that whole thing again. You know where I stand. You might think differently if you were one of those required to a) deal with those who believe they are perfectly capable of driving in their condition, b) you had to deal with someone who has just wiped out a family, or a pedestrian, c) you have to make notification to a next of kin, d) you have to investigate the accident and clean up the mess. But maybe not. Only you would know how you might have a change of opinion. I understand that the emotional ramifications of dealing with these guys on the job is staggering, but I'll betcha a dollar that each and every one of those drunk driving accidents consisted of a driver who was driving recklessly (or else, by definition, it wouldn't be a drunk driving accident). This country has a long standing history of requiring probable cause for an action they *committed*, not the one they might commit. Circumventing this process by legislating against actions that are not harmful in and of themselves and *might* lead to a crime just doesn't work. Again, I'm not saying that drunk drivers shouldn't be prosecuted if they're not driving safely. I'm suggesting that the law be uniform in this regard. The pedestrian that was wiped out probably wouldn't be concerned whether the driver who hit him was drunk or putting ketchup on his fries. What makes the drunk driver worse than the burger eater? If I was dictator, I'd implement one road law: reckless driving. If you're exhibiting the symptoms of drunkeness, you'll violate this law. If you've got one hand around a hamburger and another on your radio's tuner, you'll violate this law too. You're being just as reckless in either case, so I fail to see why the charge for one is so severe but for the other a mere slap on the wrist. Look, this doesn't mean that I don't think the officer should attempt to measure the driver's level of intoxication as further evidence that the driver was impaired, but I don't think a driver's intoxication level alone should condemn him to DMV pergatory. And just who is going to make that determination? In this land of the happy lawsuits, if the officer determines the individual is fit to drive, and two miles down the road, the driver either wrecks himself, or takes out someone else... where do you think the liability will fall? It many places, once you stop an individual for DUI, you don't dare instruct them to pull the car over to the side of the road if they haven't already. If they happen to pull it over and roll into a ditch or whatever, the officer is then liable for having directed an impaired person to move the vehicle. Well, if the person wasn't violating the law, then the officer wouldn't be liable. If the officer is unable to legally detain the driver, then how can he be held liable? And yes, I agree that many chronic alcohol abusers are dangerous on the roadways. But I think a lot of people need to change their driving habits, and the drunks are singled out. By the way, just so we're clear, I rarely drink and never drive after having done so. My concern isn't a personal matter; rather, it's just a call for consistency in the law. I agree there is an inconsistency, but what you propose essentially allows the driver to self determine whether they are safe to drive. As we all know, the ability to make rational decisions under the influence decreases rapidly with the amount consumed. I see no way this would work. How is that different from how things are now? The driver either decides he's intoxicated or he's not. Unless most bars are now equipped with BAC meters in the barstools, many of the drivers insist that they "only had a few" and that they're not drunk. And let's not beat around the bush here. We know that, especially late at night and on weekends, it's not reckless driving that cops are after - it's alcohol/drugs/guns/warrants. If the roadway isn't busy, some cops will stop you for the most insignificant offenses, mostly to check you out. It's funny...I live in a small town and work very late nights. Every single week I pass through the center of town and have a police cruiser immediately jump on my tail and follow, oftentimes coming so close that I can no longer see his headlights (presumably, running the license plate through the computer). It's distracting, it makes me nervous, and if I don't know it's a cop I have no idea what kind of lunatic is driving behind me like that. I know he's doing his job, but I can definitely envision that sort of action inducing some erratic or even unsafe driving - especially in someone who may be less skilled or a woman who may be more easily frightened driving on a deserted road in a small town (if they don't know it's a police cruiser). I think this sort of strategy should be curtailed a bit and a more passive approach taken. So, what do we do.... just cruise around until we find a vehicle rolled in a ditch, or worse, before we check them out? Make no mistake, I do not support getting on someone's rear bumper and following until the screw up, because everyone will eventually, whether nervous or not, commit an offense, even if it's some obscure law nobody has heard of since vehicles first carried people. No, I think you have to wait for them to actually show that they're not driving safely before you pull them over. Come on, we've all seen the drunk driving down the road. Oftentimes they're clear as day. Those are the people who have to be stopped. Not the ones that are driving with a broken tail light and, oh, by the way, have had a few drinks. And, I spent years training my people to watch for things at night, like changing lanes without using a signal, same with making a turn, etc, crossing the center line, but not to be compelled to make a stop. First judge on how serious the actions are in relation to other traffic (not counting my patrolman's vehicle). If it's serious, or if it's repeatedly committed, like drifting off the shoulder, then make the stop and check them out. It may just be that the driver worked a double shift, and is half asleep. The stop may wake them up enough to make it home alive. You might be surprised at the numbers of letters we received from people who, even DUI, thanked one of my troopers for getting their attention. Hey, I'm all for that. Stop the guy who's half asleep if he's driving erratically. Stop the guy who's drunk if he's driving erratically. What's the difference? They're equally dangerous, but one gets away with a warning and the other loses his license, might spend some time in jail or pay a hefty fine, and has a felony on his record. You complain that law enforcement is too active. Many people do. And many of those same people will be the first to scream holy hell because the cops didn't stop something before it happened. Like, 'my kids would still be alive if you had taken that SOB drunk off the road.' kind of reaction. We're either reactive (responding to something which has happened), or proactive (trying to head off something before it happens). In either case, some portion of the public finds fault with how we do our jobs. The jobs those same people hire us to do, but to someone else.... not them. If you come up with a way we can meet the needs of all the people we work for... speak up. We'd like to know how we can be all things to all people; victim, violator, etc. Well, I'm not the type of person that passes the buck, that expects people to perform the supernatural, or that argues for or against something but has a change of mind when it happens to me personally. I fully understand that a "reactive" police force is not capable of heading things off before they happen, being at a house before it's broken into and protecting the people inside, or predicting the future in general. However, I also understand the dangers of a police force that is too proactive, curtailing the rights of citizens who have done no wrong in the name of ensuring safety. Clearly there's a happy medium that must be reached, and I tend to be found closer to the liberty side than security side. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| STOLEN TELEFUNKEN DEMO MICROPHONES @ AES 2004 S.F. CALIFORNIA | Pro Audio | |||
| STOLEN TELEFUNKEN DEMO MICROPHONES @ AES 2004 S.F. CALIFORNIA | Pro Audio | |||
| Over $70,000 worth of gear stolen | Pro Audio | |||
| Yet another eBay scam? Stolen ID? | Pro Audio | |||
| stolen car stereo and cigarette lighter | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
