Pleasant drive in the States?
Jason James
If the cops stop you, more than likely you will be spread-eagled against
your car while they frisk you. You really knnow you're in the shit if a
second police car arrives, as that means you'll be taken away while the
original officer continues his shift . The order "put your hands behind your
back" means
you're going to be 'cuffed. This doesn't necessarily mean you're being
arrested, it is used as an 'in case' measure while they run all your details
thru the computer. God forbid if you have a 'warrant' or they find any weed
in your car as they search to find something "to get you off the streets".
Whatever you do, dont resist, as this will get you possibley: mauled by a
police-dog (Alsation of course), one dark guy was laid out hiding under a
bush,..the dog was sent in, and while he screamed in pain, unable to move,
this was construed as further resisting. Then there are the tazor and/or,
sprayed in the face with capsicum spray, or jammed face-down in the dirt
with one officer's boot on your neck, another's knee
in your back, while being screamed at to "put your hands behind your back".
All this can be see on the TV program "Cops". Over there you have to carry
your rego to prove you have insurance. In one of the related programs
"Video justice" a driver finally stops after a chase. The driver didnt get
out,.after much shouting, he must have "made a move", cause one officer
started shooting into the car while other police were in the line of fire.
Incredibley, the driver survived after 70 odd bullets were discharged. He
had 3 hits, but lived. One officer was hit in the leg in the cross-fire. It
was stated this film was used in future training on what not to do. Then
there was the driver who got out with a cell-phone which was thought to be a
gun. Only the quick action by an officer close to him, did he yell "it's a
cell-phone",..wheeew.
I get the feeling, that if you're driving over there, it is the police you
have to watch out for :-)
Jason
Noddy
"Jason James" <a...@ass.com> wrote in message
news:4b05e21d$0$3485$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
> I get the feeling, that if you're driving over there, it is the police you
> have to watch out for :-)
You do indeed.
I went to school with a bloke who was shot and killed by a cop after being
pulled over and asked for his licence. I forget what he was pulled over for,
but the cop came to the window and asked for his licence and the bloke dived
his hand into his pocket to get his wallet out as you do and the cop
apparently thought he was going for a gun and pulled out his and pumped a
few rounds into him.
It was in the mid 80's somewhere in California, and there was a huge stink
about it at the time.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
ti...@beerlover.com
> "Video justice" a driver finally stops after a chase. The driver didnt get
> out,.after much shouting, he must have "made a move", cause one officer
> started shooting into the car while other police were in the line of fire.
> Incredibley, the driver survived after 70 odd bullets were discharged. He
> had 3 hits, but lived. One officer was hit in the leg in the cross-fire. It
years in the big house.
Trevor Wilson
"Jason James" <a...@ass.com> wrote in message
news:4b05e21d$0$3485$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
**Understood. Here's my story:
I visited the US in 1994 and 1995. The first year, we made the mistake of
hiring a V6 Camry. At anything over 160kph, those things are a death-trap.
My mate was sriving across the California desert at around 160kph and I
spotted a broad-winged 'plane above us. I warned him to slow down, since it
looked like a plice spotte 'plane. He ignored me. A few minutes later, the
'plane swooped down along the highway, at a hundred Metres or so and flashed
his landing lights at us. My mate slowed down and I figured they would set
up a road block for us. Nup. Made it all the way into LA without incident.
After being overtaken by mum, dad and three kids in a people-mover (doing
more than 160kph) I vowed to hire something better next time.
In 1995, we scoured the hire car cattle-dog and found a Ford Thunderbird.
The only RWD car on their books! Nice car. Cruising at 200kph was a
zero-fuss affair. The only time I was concerned was when I slowed to 160kph
whilst coming into LA and saw a copper in a U-turn bay. I figured that we
were pretty much screwed, but, again, no problem. Apparently, the coppers
only stop drivers who do really dumb things. I guess driving at a 160kph
doesn't qualify as a dumb thing in the US. No radar traps, no cameras. It
was like a dream. I dunno what it is like now though.
Oh yeah: The roads in California are crap. The roads in Navada are like
billiard tables.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Fraser Johnston
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7mmjtiF...@mid.individual.net...
looked sideways at us. Wish it was like that here. The roads are mega wide
and smooth and people have some lane discipline.
Fraser
Jason James
"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4b05fd11$0$37083$c30e...@exi-reader.telstra.net...
I guess it comes home to roost on their gun-culture,..mind you, I had plenty
of fire-arms once :-(
Jason
Jason James
<ti...@beerlover.com> wrote in message
news:dk5cg59ucq288sf7a...@4ax.com...
And that would be a heavy term for what he did,..spooked, for what ever
reason.
Jason
Jason James
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7mmjtiF...@mid.individual.net...
>
That's surprising,...being allowed to cruise that fast. Then again, if
"Cops" is any indication, they dont seem to pull over for speeding.
Jason
atec7 7
drives outside town at 90mph
John_H
>
>Try Canada , since the cctv cams were dropped from highway duty everyone
>drives outside town at 90mph
Try Australia, where prior to policing for profit (introduced during
the 1990's in most states) 150 kph would've been very close to the
85th percentile in most parts.
Based on observation, policing methods have been very effective in
reducing the 85th percentile to something very close to the posted
limits and certainly within the enforced tolerances (except in places
where it's not profitable). The relevant authorities would also have
that information, since there's enough traffic monitoring devices in
use to provide accurate figures.
What it doesn't appear to have achieved is any measurable reduction in
the overall road toll ("appear to have achieved", since up-to-date
detailed statistics have gotten increasingly harder to come by). And
that's in spite of significant advances in both passive and active car
safety. I'd also suspect that in some locations where there's now
high levels of compliance with posted limits where there wasn't before
it's been accompanied by significant increases in the road toll (but
without the detailed statistics it's difficult to verify).
So, why do they persist?... And how long before it comes back to bite
them on their slippery arses?
Also bear in mind, it only requires a very small number exceeding the
limit by a small margin to maintain a very high level of
profitability... which is almost certainly what's currently taking
place.
--
John H
atec7 7
> atec7 7 wrote:
>> Try Canada , since the cctv cams were dropped from highway duty everyone
>> drives outside town at 90mph
>
> Try Australia, where prior to policing for profit (introduced during
> the 1990's in most states) 150 kph would've been very close to the
> 85th percentile in most parts.
it took a while but the public made the pollies do the right thing
eventually
Now as to how it gets done hee in Au I can't say yet but I am thinking
when the current system IS dumped other changes will occour ( some by
political stealth)
>
> Based on observation, policing methods have been very effective in
> reducing the 85th percentile to something very close to the posted
> limits and certainly within the enforced tolerances (except in places
> where it's not profitable). The relevant authorities would also have
> that information, since there's enough traffic monitoring devices in
> use to provide accurate figures.
>
The cctv cam on the story bridge is shot and otherwise damaged on a
regular basis as are most cameras around Brisbane and the cost claims
bear no resemblance to the actual purchase costs
No why the fallacious claims unless it's seen as a way to piss public
money against the wall > ? or maybe justify the cost of guvco
> What it doesn't appear to have achieved is any measurable reduction in
> the overall road toll ("appear to have achieved", since up-to-date
> detailed statistics have gotten increasingly harder to come by). And
> that's in spite of significant advances in both passive and active car
> safety. I'd also suspect that in some locations where there's now
> high levels of compliance with posted limits where there wasn't before
> it's been accompanied by significant increases in the road toll (but
> without the detailed statistics it's difficult to verify).
>
> So, why do they persist?... And how long before it comes back to bite
> them on their slippery arses No idea but I miss young JBP.
>
> Also bear in mind, it only requires a very small number exceeding the
> limit by a small margin to maintain a very high level of
> profitability... which is almost certainly what's currently taking
> place.
perhaps civil disobedience needs to take a major part in camera and
monitoring equipment damage ?
I expect it to shortly along wth a major increase in unregistered cars
>
John_H
>
> perhaps civil disobedience needs to take a major part in camera and
>monitoring equipment damage ?
Monitoring equipment isn't the same thing as speed cameras and didn't
ought be cause for concern, other than the results being kept secret.
AFAIK the devices with two parallel tubes across the road both count
the number of vehicles and record their speeds.
Based solely on my own observations, I'd suspect the monitoring
equipment, which is widely used, would show a high level of compliance
with posted limits in rural locations where they're vigorously
policed, with no corresponding decrease in crash rates (or
injury/death). But don't expect an announcement from Govco any time
soon.
Main culprit is likely to be the changed driving habits resulting from
overpolicing... particularly the formation of convoys under light
traffic conditions.
--
John H
atec7 7
> atec7 7 wrote:
>> perhaps civil disobedience needs to take a major part in camera and
>> monitoring equipment damage ?
>
> Monitoring equipment isn't the same thing as speed cameras
it is now and increasingly so as the two become combined
stay posted for more