Should we automatically ticket speeders with robotic speed cameras on all U.S. highways?
Immortalist
in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a patrol car
cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement officer
standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.
But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in
Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.highways/index.html
Would this stimulate the economy in any way?
Daniel T.
As I understand it, most US states fine the driver, not the car owner,
for any laws that are broken during the operation of a vehicle. If this
is true, then "speed cameras" would be problematic.
BOfL
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some also photograph the driver. Others send the 'ticket' to the
registered owner, and they have to either pay up or identify the other
driver.
The economic situation is extremely intriguing.
There is no need for cameras. All is necessary are detecting devices
in each car , and utilisation of sat nav technology.
That way everybody will be caught, which means on of two things. The
majority would lose their licenses, bringing the community to a halt,
or a vast amount of revenue would dry up, to say nothing of the
traffic jams that would result.
Interestingly, in W. Aus, the traffic cops are on a 'work to rule'
situation for a wage claim, whereby they are parking their cars in
front of automatic radar guns, preventing the offenders being
'nabbed'.
This destroys the argument that they are in place to decrease the road
toll, and the revenue is secondary. Imagine if they publicised they
were not going to respond to burglary calls?
I heard a comp 'geek' telling me many years ago about such satellite
technology. He also said that your credit card could also be instantly
debited !!!
Also the same technology could reduce collisions dramatically by
having a cut out device automatically triggered when the hazard is
looming. This would also dramatically reduce the need for replacement
cars, and send many insurance companies to the wall.
Always interesting to see what emerges from out technological
breakthroughs.
BOfL
the_pc_jellybean!!.!
"Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-AC18B6...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Nonsense.
In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the option to
nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not in control of the
vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your friend/employee/family member
was driving, they are the ones that pay the fine.
Now how is that "problematic"?
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic light
> in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a patrol car
> cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement officer
> standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.
>
> But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in
> Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
>
> Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
> speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
> likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
Just about zero. Since Americans aer so fascinated with their idot
Camerras are Court Room Dramas about Robots, that's mostly
why the people who actual understand high-speed photography,
cypernetics and robotics, and engineering and radar, and
hughway construction work on Holographics, Optical Computers,
Fiber Optics, C++, Distrubuted Processing, On-Line Banking, On-Line
Shopping,
On-Line Publishing, Cell Phones, Electric Cars, Stealth Radar,
GPS,
Digital Terrain Mapping, Flat Screen HDTV, Blue Ray, MP3, MPEG,
Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, AUVs, Drones, Cruise
Missiles,
non Lead Acid Batteries, Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Self-
Replicating Machines,
and Self-Assembling Robots.
Rather than their Highway Systems in the first place
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.highw...
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Or more generally, since it's obvious the only thing Americans
are even
invested in science or technology is convenience items, rather
than
engineering, education, or science, they probably should look for
a job
with GM,rather than in engineering,
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.highw...
>
> > Would this stimulate the economy in any way?- Hide quoted text -
ZerkonXXXX
> Would this stimulate the economy in any way?
The issue should be the constitutional legality of treating "crime as a
source of income". Nothing else really matters before this. By 'crime'
here I mean all crime including those most heinous.
Where does this lead to or where has this has already led?
A logical question is: If crime is considered a source of needed revenue,
would abiding the law then become an economic threat?
john joseph
LOL! Well, for a society falling headfirst into loss of freedom, just
look to England where the civilian use of cameras is often considered a
threat by rogue cops. It seems they think that because the government
has planted cameras all over the place, then only the government should
be allowed to take pictures.
I was busted once in Ohio for having a radar detector. I offered in
court this defense: "Your honor, I was using the detector so that I
would know if our public servants, the police, were on the job serving
us as I drove the area. I feel safer when I know they are working." He
about laughed his ass off but didn't fine me.
kim
What happens when the owner pleads the 5th?
Bert Hyman
news:7318ff9f-91de-4d12...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
> speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
> likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
>
Minneapolis tried them in 2005 & 2006, but the Minnesota Supreme Court
found that their use violated the Minnesota constitution.
Minneapolis is now in the process of sending refunds to anyone who
actually paid a fine.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
> In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the
> option to nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not in
> control of the vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your
> friend/employee/family member was driving, they are the ones that pay
> the fine.
This puts the registered owner in the position of having to prove his
innocence. The rule of law in the US is that The State must prove his
guilt.
If the "nominated" driver simply denies the owner's accusation, then
what?
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, in those countries, you are guilty until proven innocent. Doesn't
work like that here.
Here the authorities have to be able to prove a person was driving. A
picture of a license plate, or a signal from a gps, does not
constitute 'proof'. Thus, an owner is deemed innocent until it can be
proven he was driving.
To accomplish this, you would have to double the number of cameras for
each radar gun, one for the rear plate and one for the driver (the
rear plate image is required as many states do not require a front
plate).
Actually had a case here that a gentleman was captured by a camera
running a red-light. When they sent him the ticket, they included the
picture of him running the red light and a ticket for X amount of
money. He sent them a picture of the money. So they sent him a
picture of some handcuffs. He paid the fine. (didn't have anything
to do with the topic, but an amusing story).
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Rod Speed
> In news:2s6ors....@news.alt.net <tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .!> wrote:
>
>> In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the
>> option to nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not in
>> control of the vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your
>> friend/employee/family member was driving, they are the ones that pay
>> the fine.
> This puts the registered owner in the position of having to prove his innocence.
> The rule of law in the US is that The State must prove his guilt.
Thats the system in Britain and Australia too. They have speed cameras anyway.
> If the "nominated" driver simply denies the owner's accusation, then what?
Then the owner gets to pay the fine. And if he doesnt, ultimately he can lose his license, the car or house etc.
Rod Speed
The 5th isnt relevant if he didnt do the crime.
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> Bert Hyman wrote:
So, basically, an owner of a car, who is completely innocent, can face
a fine or penalties for something he did not do. And not only does
the state condone it, they are actively pursuing it. Sounds like a
fucked-up system.
Sounds like they're more interested in raising funds than punishing
the lawbreakers.
That's why it would be more difficult here. In the US, the
authorities actually have to PROVE their case. You can't fine someone
just because they happen to own a vehicle.
John Jones
Here in Wales there are speed cameras everywhere, on motorways and in
lanes. We need more. In fact, we need one in the car, and there are
plans to do that. The car gets disabled or blows up if it transgresses.
Which is good news for the rest of us.
Bert Hyman
<jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
> The car gets disabled or blows up if it transgresses.
The car transgresses? I've heard of "smart cars", but that's beyond even
their capabilities, I think.
> Which is good news for the rest of us.
Who are "the rest of us"?
Rod Speed
>>>> In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the
>>>> option to nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not
>>>> in control of the vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your
>>>> friend/employee/family member was driving, they are the ones that
>>>> pay the fine.
>>> This puts the registered owner in the position of having to prove his
>>> innocence. The rule of law in the US is that The State must prove his guilt.
>> Thats the system in Britain and Australia too. They have speed cameras anyway.
>>> If the "nominated" driver simply denies the owner's accusation, then what?
>> Then the owner gets to pay the fine. And if he doesnt,
>> ultimately he can lose his license, the car or house etc.
> So, basically, an owner of a car, who is completely innocent,
> can face a fine or penalties for something he did not do.
In the unlikely event that who he leant the car to denys that they were
driving at the time and there is no camera photo that shows who is driving.
> And not only does the state condone it, they are
> actively pursuing it. Sounds like a fucked-up system.
Like it or lump it.
> Sounds like they're more interested in raising funds than punishing the lawbreakers.
Wrong when the owner of the car is welcome to say who was driving the car.
> That's why it would be more difficult here.
Nope, the law is the same in all those places.
> In the US, the authorities actually have to PROVE their case.
That is just plain wrong in some circumstances.
> You can't fine someone just because they happen to own a vehicle.
Wrong, as always.
Most obviously when there is a serious accident, the driver chooses to
leave the scene, the cops dont have to prove he was driving the car etc.
Bert Hyman
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most obviously when there is a serious accident, the driver chooses to
> leave the scene, the cops dont have to prove he was driving the car
> etc.
Really? They just find the registered owner and toss him in jail?
I've never heard of such a thing.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> wsth...@bellsouth.net wrote
>>> In the US, the authorities actually have to PROVE their case.
>> That is just plain wrong in some circumstances.
>>> You can't fine someone just because they happen to own a vehicle.
>> Wrong, as always.
>> Most obviously when there is a serious accident, the driver chooses to
>> leave the scene, the cops dont have to prove he was driving the car etc.
> Really?
Yep.
> They just find the registered owner and toss him in jail?
Nope, he gets charged and tried, just like anyone else does.
> I've never heard of such a thing.
So stupid it cant even work out what is being discussed.
John Stafford
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In news:h0bqkr$fl6$3...@news.eternal-september.org John Jones
> <jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The car gets disabled or blows up if it transgresses.
>
> The car transgresses? I've heard of "smart cars", but that's beyond even
> their capabilities, I think.
>
>> Which is good news for the rest of us.
>
> Who are "the rest of us"?
It sure ain't us Minnesotans. Once upon a time (early Seventies) the Feds
tried to put high-power lines across private farmland in Northern Minnesota
and the farmers raised such hell that even Rolling Stone Magazine covered
it. Over the course of the incidents, Troopers' cars were burned and a
police helicopter was shot out of the air.
I'm glad John Jones is far, far away. He should be, too.
Michael Gordge
>
> So, in those countries, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Yes thats right, the scourge of victimless crime depends upon that
premise.
> Thus, an owner is deemed innocent until it can be
> proven he was driving.
Thats about to change, wait and see, scum like Obamamamama will see to
it.
> To accomplish this, you would have to double the number of cameras for
> each radar gun, one for the rear plate and one for the driver (the
> rear plate image is required as many states do not require a front
> plate).
Its far easier just to invent another law to create further victimless
criminals, tell me what are your views on drug laws?
MG
Michael Gordge
> On 6/5/09 2:15 PM, in article Xns9C219112B8600VeebleFet...@216.250.184.7,
>
> "Bert Hyman" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > Innews:h0bqkr$fl6$3...@news.eternal-september.orgJohn Jones
> > <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> The car gets disabled or blows up if it transgresses.
>
> > The car transgresses? I've heard of "smart cars", but that's beyond even
> > their capabilities, I think.
>
> >> Which is good news for the rest of us.
>
> > Who are "the rest of us"?
>
> It sure ain't us Minnesotans. Once upon a time (early Seventies) the Feds
> tried to put high-power lines across private farmland in Northern Minnesota
> and the farmers raised such hell that even Rolling Stone Magazine covered
> it. Over the course of the incidents, Troopers' cars were burned and a
> police helicopter was shot out of the air.
What was the outcome?
There's a casino in the US somewhere that was constructed around the
house of a woman who refused to sell her house to those who built the
casino, its called up-holding Private Property rights, the hall mark
of any and all civilized societies.
MG
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> wstho...@bellsouth.net wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Bert Hyman wrote
> >>> <tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .!> wrote
> >>>> In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the
> >>>> option to nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not
> >>>> in control of the vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your
> >>>> friend/employee/family member was driving, they are the ones that
> >>>> pay the fine.
> >>> This puts the registered owner in the position of having to prove his
> >>> innocence. The rule of law in the US is that The State must prove his guilt.
> >> Thats the system in Britain and Australia too. They have speed cameras anyway.
> >>> If the "nominated" driver simply denies the owner's accusation, then what?
> >> Then the owner gets to pay the fine. And if he doesnt,
> >> ultimately he can lose his license, the car or house etc.
> > So, basically, an owner of a car, who is completely innocent,
> > can face a fine or penalties for something he did not do.
>
> In the unlikely event that who he leant the car to denys that they were
> driving at the time and there is no camera photo that shows who is driving.
>
> > And not only does the state condone it, they are
> > actively pursuing it. Sounds like a fucked-up system.
>
> Like it or lump it.
Well, seeing as I live in a Country that doesn't do that, I can say
'Fuck it'.
> > Sounds like they're more interested in raising funds than punishing the lawbreakers.
>
> Wrong when the owner of the car is welcome to say who was driving the car.
Again, your system considers him guilty and make him prove otherwise.
Ours doesn't.
> > That's why it would be more difficult here.
>
> Nope, the law is the same in all those places.
You believe the law is unvaried from country to country? Damn but
your an idjit.
> > In the US, the authorities actually have to PROVE their case.
>
> That is just plain wrong in some circumstances.
Nope, it correct in all cases.
> > You can't fine someone just because they happen to own a vehicle.
>
> Wrong, as always.
Not with anything more serious than a parking ticket.
> Most obviously when there is a serious accident, the driver chooses to
> leave the scene, the cops dont have to prove he was driving the car etc.-
Uh, actually they do. You just said it yourself. The DRIVER left the
scene. The authorities have prove that the OWNER happened to be the
DRIVER. Finding a car at a wreck site not proof that the owner was
anywhere near the accident. Cars are stolen/loaned all the time.
Surely the owner will be questioned, but the authorities have to prove
that he was the driver. See, innocent until proven guilty. Just like
we consideredthe possibility of you having some semblance of
intelligence until you proved otherwise.
A name on a pink slip has no bearing on who is behind the wheel at any
particular time.
Michael Gordge
>
> I was busted once in Ohio for having a radar detector. I offered in
> court this defense: "Your honor, I was using the detector so that I
> would know if our public servants, the police, were on the job serving
> us as I drove the area. I feel safer when I know they are working." He
> about laughed his ass off but didn't fine me.
A couple of years ago I was standing on the side of a road in NZ
holding a sign warning motorists of a "Tax camera Just Ahead", much to
the delight of tooting motorists who slammed their foot on the breaks
the moment they saw the sign, after about half an hour a police car
pulls up across the road, out gets a 6 foot uniformed goon who marched
across the road and told me in forceful tones, I was breaking the law
and to move on, I asked what law? he replied, "You are interring with
the police in the execution of their duty" so obviously I asked, so
what is your duty, to collect tax with that camera or to slow down
speeding cars and make the roads safer? and I pointed to the cars who
ALL slammed their foot on the breaks regardless of the speed they were
doing when they read my sign, he then changed tact and said, I was
distracting motorists and he would arrest me if I didn't stop. "Oh so
you'd have arrested yourself a real criminal then would you, even if
my actions in getting motorists to slow down saved one of your child's
life or the life of a child on this street"?
Look he says, in his fucking disgusting jack booted Nazi come
socialist tone, "The law is the law, this is my final word, stop now
or I will arrest you" I replied, I am due to go back to work in half
an hour, come back in 35 minutes and if I am still here then you can
arrest me, but I will have a lot of fun when I see you in court. He
left in a hufff and 30 minutes later I left.
MG
wsth...@bellsouth.net
Don't have too many views on drug laws. I'll worry about it when they
start piss-testing for chilidogs.
Simply, I abhor drugs, but have come to the conclusion the 'War on
Drugs' has been as much of a success as the 'War on Poverty' (ie, it'
aint).
Conclusion? Legalize drugs, put an age limit on them and let the
government sell them for a profit and tax the shit out of them. Make
doing anything while under the influence illegal. The government can
sell them for cheap, tax them, make a profit and still sell for less
than the illegal traders. The illegal drug runners will be left
without a market. Anyone failing a piss test will still be
unemployable. Every business will institute random drug tests, and
fire those that fail.
Also institute drug tests when anyone goes to pick up a government
check or asistance of any kind (and make it where they HAVE to show up
to get them...no more mailing). Fail the test, you get nothing.
(BTW, Obama wants to create mandatory community service? The first
people to be put to work are those on the dole)
Those that are straight and want to work, will. Those that only want
to get high, can slowly (or quickly) kill themselves without expecting
any assitance from us.
Sounds cold hearted, but nothing else has worked.
Rod Speed
It will sometime, you watch.
> I can say 'Fuck it'.
>>> Sounds like they're more interested in raising funds than punishing the lawbreakers.
>> Wrong when the owner of the car is welcome to say who was driving the car.
> Again, your system considers him guilty and make him prove otherwise.
Wrong, as always. You are always welcome to front the court and tell the magistrate
that you were not driving the car at that time the speed camera took the photo.
> Ours doesn't.
It does actually in some situations.
>>> That's why it would be more difficult here.
>> Nope, the law is the same in all those places.
> You believe the law is unvaried from country to country?
Corse not. It is however the on that particular question.
> Damn but your an idjit.
You're so stupid you cant manage to comprehend the context.
>>> In the US, the authorities actually have to PROVE their case.
>> That is just plain wrong in some circumstances.
> Nope, it correct in all cases.
Wrong, as always. Most obviously where your car is involved in a serious
accident, there are no witnesses, including the dead other driver, and you
leave the scene so no one can prove you were driving the car.
You wont get off scot free even in america.
>>> You can't fine someone just because they happen to own a vehicle.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Not with anything more serious than a parking ticket.
Those other countrys I listed choose to do that with speed
cameras and parking tickets. The US will too, you watch.
>> Most obviously when there is a serious accident, the driver chooses to
>> leave the scene, the cops dont have to prove he was driving the car etc.
> Uh, actually they do. You just said it yourself. The DRIVER left the scene.
> The authorities have prove that the OWNER happened to be the DRIVER.
No they dont in the absolute proof sense.
> Finding a car at a wreck site not proof that the owner was
> anywhere near the accident. Cars are stolen/loaned all the time.
And if the owner had not reported the car stolen, and
doesnt have any evidence that they were elsewhere
at the time, the court wont just let him off scott free.
> Surely the owner will be questioned, but the
> authorities have to prove that he was the driver.
Have fun explaining parking tickets where they dont have to do that.
> See, innocent until proven guilty.
Not with parking tickets.
> Just like we considered the possibility of you having some
> semblance of intelligence until you proved otherwise.
> A name on a pink slip has no bearing on who is behind the wheel at any particular time.
Have fun explaining parking tickets in the US.
Michael Gordge
> The government can
> sell them for cheap, tax them, make a profit and still sell for less
> than the illegal traders.
Oh so ewe're a leftist scum bag! thought as much
MG
Michael Gordge
> On Jun 5, 9:34 pm, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was busted once in Ohio for having a radar detector. I offered in
> > court this defense: "Your honor, I was using the detector so that I
> > would know if our public servants, the police, were on the job serving
> > us as I drove the area. I feel safer when I know they are working." He
> > about laughed his ass off but didn't fine me.
>
whooops corrected spelling
A couple of years ago I was standing on the side of a road in NZ
holding a sign warning motorists of a "Tax camera Just Ahead", much to
the delight of tooting motorists who slammed their foot on the brakes
the moment they saw the sign, after about half an hour a police car
pulls up across the road, out gets a 6 foot uniformed goon who marched
across the road and told me in forceful tones, I was breaking the law
and to move on, I asked what law? he replied, "You are interring with
the police in the execution of their duty" so obviously I asked, so
what is your duty, to collect tax with that camera or to slow down
speeding cars and make the roads safer? and I pointed to the cars who
ALL slammed their foot on the brakes regardless of the speed they were
Michael Gordge
> (BTW, Obama wants to create mandatory community service?
What the fuck do ewe think tax is all about?
MG
the_pc_jellybean!!.!
<wsth...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:62823926-015b-49fc...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Dont be ridiculous. Its a simple matter of traffic enforcement.
Try not to blow everything out of all proportion.
Daniel T.
> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic
> > > light in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a
> > > patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a
> > > law-enforcement officer standing at the side of a road wielding
> > > a radar gun.
> > >
> > > But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are
> > > common in Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S.
> > > states.
> > >
> > > Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that
> > > eventually speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways.
> > > But just how likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors
> > > stand in the way?
> > >
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.
> > >
> > > Would this stimulate the economy in any way?
> >
> > As I understand it, most US states fine the driver, not the car
> > owner, for any laws that are broken during the operation of a
> > vehicle. If this is true, then "speed cameras" would be
> > problematic.
>
> Nonsense.
It may be nonsense. I haven't been able to verify it either way. I can
say that in my state (Florida):
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) won�t allow the cameras
in FDOT rights of way... tickets can't be written on Florida Uniform
Traffic Citations. Infractions captured on camera won�t add points to
the violators� driver licenses. The citations will be handled as city
code-enforcement violations.
(http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/1825)
> In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the
> option to nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not in
> control of the vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your
> friend/employee/family member was driving, they are the ones that
> pay the fine.
>
> Now how is that "problematic"?
As a thought experiment... You just received a ticket in the mail. They
have a picture of what seems to be your car speeding down a local
highway. You know for a fact that you weren't driving that day, you were
home alone with a cold... What do you do?
wsth...@bellsouth.net
Me? A Leftist? Damn, that's funny. I suggest you read some of my
past posts before you start throwing around asanine monikers.
Personally, I'd like to see every drug user, seller and transporter
suffer incarceration, deportation or execution, depending on the
severity of their involvement. But it's obvious that the 'War on
Drugs' is a failure. So I say let's get out of their way and let them
kill themselves. Better yet, forget the government selling drugs, set
up compounds where people can go who want to get wasted with all the
free drugs they want. They'll be out of the way, and eventually the
free access to drugs will allow them to kill themselves without
bothering us.
It's called 'Evolution in Action.' Everytime some idiot kills himself
through is own stupidity, the world's average intelligence goes up
just a little bit.
And you call that leftist?
Michael Gordge
> Me? A Leftist?
Yes thats right, suggesting the state make money from drugs makes ewe
as leftist as that dopey prick BratObaamamamama.
> Personally, I'd like to see every drug user, seller and transporter
> suffer incarceration, deportation or execution, depending on the
> severity of their involvement.
Why? Oh I get it, because ewe are not capable of making your own
choices, in reality ewe can only speak for you.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Dont be ridiculous. Its a simple matter of traffic enforcement.
Crap, anything humans do that can be measured will be taxed, the more
humans do the more they are taxed.
Taxing car drivers / owners for traveling at speeds greater than
invented speed limits and regardless of traffic and road conditions is
all revenue gathering and standardizing / normalizing human behaviour
and has NOTHING to do with making roads better or safer places.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Better yet, forget the government selling drugs, set
> up compounds where people can go who want to get wasted with all the
> free drugs they want.
The leftist hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper and
deeper by the post, you're a fraud.
Reading some of your other posts, as you implied I should, has all the
evidence of you being a conservative liberal heading on a direct path
to being fascist while pretending to be offering something better than
dirtbag Obamama.
> They'll be out of the way, and eventually the
> free access to drugs......
Its hard to imagine anything more fucking disgustingly fascist and
left than that.
> It's called 'Evolution in Action.' Everytime some idiot kills himself
> through is own stupidity, the world's average intelligence goes up
> just a little bit.
>
> And you call that leftist?
Its fascist actually.
MG
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> On Jun 6, 11:39 am, wstho...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Me? A Leftist?
>
> Yes thats right, suggesting the state make money from drugs makes ewe
> as leftist as that dopey prick BratObaamamamama.
No, I just want to take the profit out of the hands of the street
thugs. So far, outlawing drugs has only created a wave of crime that
gets worse every year.
Give a loser wastoid who is a burden on society free access to any
drug he wants and pretty soon that idiot will take care of the problem
himself. Evolution in Action.
> > Personally, I'd like to see every drug user, seller and transporter
> > suffer incarceration, deportation or execution, depending on the
> > severity of their involvement.
>
> Why?
Maybe because we need less burdens on society?
> Oh I get it, because ewe are not capable of making your own
> choices, in reality ewe can only speak for you.
What the fuck are you talking about? I have chosen to not be a drug
addict, not be a criminal and not to coddle such criminals. I HAVE
chosen to be a hard working member of society so that I can take care
of my family and enjoy the kind of life this country was orignally set
up for; responsible and hard working individuals attempting to better
themselves. Unfortunately, the government has decided that they
should take a good portion of my hard earned money to support those
unwilling to work and those who would prefer to stay wasted 24/7.
I don' t mind paying taxes for the military, police and fire
protection and for the general infrastructure, but I could make much
better use of my money than some stoned asshole on welfare. I could
also make better use of my money than throwing it at GM, Chrysler and
pretty much everything else in that damn porkulus bill.
Now, if you consider that leftest, you have a screwed up definiton of
the word.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced.":
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> On Jun 6, 11:39 am, wstho...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Better yet, forget the government selling drugs, set
> > up compounds where people can go who want to get wasted with all the
> > free drugs they want.
>
> The leftist hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper and
> deeper by the post, you're a fraud.
>
> Reading some of your other posts, as you implied I should, has all the
> evidence of you being a conservative liberal heading on a direct path
> to being fascist while pretending to be offering something better than
> dirtbag Obamama.
Then you have just proven yourself to have a seroius reading
comprehension problem.
> > They'll be out of the way, and eventually the
> > free access to drugs......
>
> Its hard to imagine anything more fucking disgustingly fascist and
> left than that.
Than what? Stupidy should be painful. In some cases, it should be
lethal.
> > It's called 'Evolution in Action.' Everytime some idiot kills himself
> > through is own stupidity, the world's average intelligence goes up
> > just a little bit.
>
> > And you call that leftist?
>
> Its fascist actually.
Well, thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely no grasp of the
concept.
Have a nice, if misguided, life.
chazworth
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic
> > light in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a
> > patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a
> > law-enforcement officer standing at the side of a road wielding a
> > radar gun.
>
> > But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in
> > Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
>
> > Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
> > speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
> > likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
>
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.
> > > highways/index.html
>
> > Would this stimulate the economy in any way?
>
> As I understand it, most US states fine the driver, not the car owner,
> for any laws that are broken during the operation of a vehicle. If this
> is true, then "speed cameras" would be problematic.
Problematic as it is in the uk, where most people do not realise that
if you challenge a GATSO ticket that usually is enough for them to
cancel the ticket: try it!
My usual challeng is "sorry I dont think I was driving the car that
day , can you send me photos of the incident".
chazworth
> On Jun 5, 10:17 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic
> > > light in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a
> > > patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a
> > > law-enforcement officer standing at the side of a road wielding a
> > > radar gun.
>
> > > But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in
> > > Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
>
> > > Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
> > > speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
> > > likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
>
> > > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.
> > > > highways/index.html
>
> > > Would this stimulate the economy in any way?
>
> > As I understand it, most US states fine the driver, not the car owner,
> > for any laws that are broken during the operation of a vehicle. If this
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> registered owner, and they have to either pay up or identify the other
> driver.
Wrong. The burden of proof is on THEM to prove that you are the person
in the image.
In practice if you challenge the ticket , that is enough for them to
drop the charge and provide a caution.
I've done this several times.
>
> The economic situation is extremely intriguing.
>
> There is no need for cameras. All is necessary are detecting devices
> in each car , and utilisation of sat nav technology.
>
> That way everybody will be caught, which means on of two things. The
> majority would lose their licenses, bringing the community to a halt,
> or a vast amount of revenue would dry up, to say nothing of the
> traffic jams that would result.
Yeah but you have to convince people to have equipment in their cars.
>
> Interestingly, in W. Aus, the traffic cops are on a 'work to rule'
> situation for a wage claim, whereby they are parking their cars in
> front of automatic radar guns, preventing the offenders being
> 'nabbed'.
>
> This destroys the argument that they are in place to decrease the road
> toll, and the revenue is secondary. Imagine if they publicised they
> were not going to respond to burglary calls?
>
> I heard a comp 'geek' telling me many years ago about such satellite
> technology. He also said that your credit card could also be instantly
> debited !!!
>
> Also the same technology could reduce collisions dramatically by
> having a cut out device automatically triggered when the hazard is
> looming. This would also dramatically reduce the need for replacement
> cars, and send many insurance companies to the wall.
>
> Always interesting to see what emerges from out technological
> breakthroughs.
>
> BOfL
John Jones
> In news:h0bqkr$fl6$3...@news.eternal-september.org John Jones
> <jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The car gets disabled or blows up if it transgresses.
>
> The car transgresses? I've heard of "smart cars", but that's beyond even
> their capabilities, I think.
>
>> Which is good news for the rest of us.
>
> Who are "the rest of us"?
>
The law abiding citizens who are tired of playing the wild west with cars.
Sports cars are an anachronism.
John Jones
you people need neanderthal counselling. The "freedom on the roads"
isn't the freedom to go fast, like children want to go fast. The day of
the speedster is over.
Coffee's For Closers
3d7b2b...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, chaz...@yahoo.com
says...
> On Jun 5, 3:51=A0am, BOfL <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is no need for cameras. All is necessary are detecting devices
> > in each car , and utilisation of sat nav technology.
> >
> > That way everybody will be caught, which means on of two things. The
> > majority would lose their licenses, bringing the community to a halt,
> > or a vast amount of revenue would dry up, to say nothing of the
> > traffic jams that would result.
> Yeah but you have to convince people to have equipment in
> their cars.
The gubmint doesn't have to "convince" people to have other
equipment in their cars. Seatbelts, lights, etc, are already
legally mandated.
In the future, car manufacturers will be required to install
logging equipment which detects an RFID signal from a license in
the possession of the driver. Speeding will be automatically
detected, with a radio transmission to a gubmint facility,
including GPS coordinates, driver license number, and time-stamp.
The money will be automatically debited from an account.
Then, traffic lights will broadcast an, "I Am Red" signal, which
the vehicle will detect, so it can report you for proceeding
through the intersection (which will also have a device similar
to a shoplifting alarm.)
The in-car sensor will call in periodically (like a cellphones)
and failure to do so will result in suspension of vehicle
registration on suspicion of tampering.
Eventually, all driving of all vehicles will generate detailed
logs of who/when/where.
--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/
Day Brown
> Eventually, all driving of all vehicles will generate detailed
> logs of who/when/where.
broadband. You walk or bike everywhere. The house has its own server so
they cant tell who went where on the net either. It has its own credit
card, so everything you buy is thru it, and it gets the spam that
results, not you.
Teleconference with the outside world, and quit wasting gas driving
around in it. You dont need the latest cold or flu bug they have anyway.
Bert Hyman
<jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
> you people need neanderthal counselling.
Another wannabe authoritarian thug heard from.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
BOfL
> On Jun 5, 3:51 am, BOfL <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:17 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wrong. The burden of proof is on THEM to prove that you are the person
> in the image.
Not formally. You have to sign a stat dec that it wasnt you, and tell
them who it was.
> In practice if you challenge the ticket , that is enough for them to
> drop the charge and provide a caution.
> I've done this several times.
>
>
>
>
> Yeah but you have to convince people to have equipment in their cars.
>
That used to apply to seatbelts also. I heard that some cars already
have chips installed during manufacture, under the guise of
identification after theft.
BOfL
Rod Speed
> 3d7b2b...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, chaz...@yahoo.com
> says...
>> On Jun 5, 3:51=A0am, BOfL <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> There is no need for cameras. All is necessary are detecting devices
>>> in each car , and utilisation of sat nav technology.
>>>
>>> That way everybody will be caught, which means on of two things. The
>>> majority would lose their licenses, bringing the community to a
>>> halt, or a vast amount of revenue would dry up, to say nothing of
>>> the traffic jams that would result.
>
>
>> Yeah but you have to convince people to have equipment in
>> their cars.
> The gubmint doesn't have to "convince" people to have other
> equipment in their cars. Seatbelts, lights, etc, are already
> legally mandated.
Yes.
> In the future, car manufacturers will be required to install
> logging equipment which detects an RFID signal from a license in
> the possession of the driver. Speeding will be automatically
> detected, with a radio transmission to a gubmint facility,
> including GPS coordinates, driver license number, and time-stamp.
> The money will be automatically debited from an account.
Nope, the voters wont buy that. Just like they dont accept govt
cameras in their houses to check if they are raping the kids etc.
> Then, traffic lights will broadcast an, "I Am Red" signal, which
> the vehicle will detect, so it can report you for proceeding
> through the intersection (which will also have a device similar
> to a shoplifting alarm.)
> The in-car sensor will call in periodically (like a cellphones)
> and failure to do so will result in suspension of vehicle
> registration on suspicion of tampering.
> Eventually, all driving of all vehicles will generate detailed logs of who/when/where.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
John Jones
> In news:h0eug3$njd$3...@news.eternal-september.org John Jones
> <jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> you people need neanderthal counselling.
>
> Another wannabe authoritarian thug heard from.
>
The sports car is an anachronism hailing back to childish days, and is
quickly being forgotten.
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> Bert Hyman wrote:
> > Innews:h0eug3$njd$3...@news.eternal-september.orgJohn Jones
> > <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> you people need neanderthal counselling.
>
> > Another wannabe authoritarian thug heard from.
>
> The sports car is an anachronism hailing back to childish days, and is
> quickly being forgotten.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Seeing as GM has just just about to
release an updated version of the Camaro muscle car, and Dodge has
already released an updated version of their Challenger and haS been
selling the shit out of their Vipers for 17 years.
Not to mention they're still manufacturing and selling Porsche 911s,
Ford Mustangs, Lotus, Maserati, Mercedes-Benz SLKs, Audi A5 & R8, BMW
Z4 & M6 & 1-series, Chrysler Crossfire and the occasional Ferrari and
Lamborghini.
I mean, besides those and dozens of more models, you hardly ever see
them anymore...
Usually, people who consider any type of care 'childish', an
'anachronism' or 'inpractical' are people who can't afford them on
their burger flipping salary.
John Jones
The writing is on the wall. The public will let the cowboy days of
motoring vanish. "Sporty" driving will be a historical blip associated
with a minor, irresponsible lobby.
For the same reason that there are no "sports" taxi's or "sports" buses,
soon there will be no "sports" cars.
Who Is John Galt
Then teh market place will reflect it. No regulation needed.
Rod Speed
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland, you watch.
(David P.)
>
> The writing is on the wall. The public will let the
> cowboy days of motoring vanish. "Sporty" driving
> will be a historical blip associated with a minor,
> irresponsible lobby. For the same reason that there
> are no "sports" taxi's or "sports" buses, soon there
> will be no "sports" cars.
John Jones' Google Groups profile:
"Profile - This account has been banned because it
violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use."
.
.
--
wsth...@bellsouth.net
Which wall is that? The one you continually beat your head against?
> The public will let the cowboy days of
> motoring vanish. "
Sorry, the "Public" does not determine what I drive. Only I do. As
long as there are people that want major horsepower, they will buy
them. As long as they will buy them, someone will build and sell
them.
> Sporty" driving will be a historical blip associated
> with a minor, irresponsible lobby.
Everyone has hobbies. It's not for you to determine if they are
responsible or not.
> For the same reason that there are no "sports" taxi's or "sports" buses,
> soon there will be no "sports" cars.
Were there EVER any 'Sports' taxis or 'Sports' buses? If not, then
your comparison is bullshit.
Buses, taxis and trains will never be a substitute for the family
car. And even if it were, the will always be people who buy cars just
for fun. I only 'need' one car. But I have several. A couple with
'big honkin V-8s'.
And what are you going to do about it? Nothing but whine in your
petulant, child-like voice.
It must really suck to be so jealous of what other people drive.
Michael Gordge
Your fraud in you to pretending to be anti-left and claiming a moral
high ground for yourself.
> I have chosen to not be a drug
> addict, not be a criminal and not to coddle such criminals.
Oh so you like the idea of victimless crimes as well. Your leftist
hole is getting deeper each time you post.
HINT; The law does NOT makes things right or good.
HINT; Explain WHO is the victim in a drug transaction and HOW are they
a victim.
> I don' t mind paying taxes for the military, police and fire
> protection and for the general infrastructure,
Thats what makes you leftist / socialist and your attack on people's
moral choices makes you a fucking fascist.
> but I could make much
> better use of my money than some stoned asshole on welfare.
Fascist. If a welfare provider is happy for their benefactors to
purchase drugs, then why should that be any of your fucking concern if
not because you are a fascist claiming a bogus moral highground?
> I could
> also make better use of my money than throwing it at GM, Chrysler and
> pretty much everything else in that damn porkulus bill.
You want the state to build the roads so why not the cars that drive
on them? idiot.
> Now, if you consider that leftest, you have a screwed up definiton of
> the word.
If you think taxation and having the state build the roads but not the
cars on them is not leftist / socialists BS then its you who is
screwed in the ability to identify fact from fiction, not me.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Well, thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely no grasp of the
> concept.
Gosh, you dont like having your fascist leftist inspired faults
pointed out to you do you?
Hint; If you like the idea of the state building fire stations and
roads then what standard you are using to stop them building the fire
engines and the cars that use them?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Nope, the voters wont buy that. Just like they dont accept govt
> cameras in their houses to check if they are raping the kids etc.
So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler? Your faith in the bigger
mob is grossly missplaced. If someone had said 10 years ago that
people who cut down their trees on their own property could go to jail
for doing so, that person would have been laughed at and yet that IS
what now happens.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Sorry, the "Public" does not determine what I drive. Only I do.
And yet you say you want the public to determine where and how you
drive, by the roads that you want the public to build for you.
MG
John Jones
The one in your head, and the one your back will be facing.
>> The public will let the cowboy days of
>> motoring vanish. "
>
> Sorry, the "Public" does not determine what I drive. Only I do.
Oh for the return of those halcyon days... Remember Jesse James and
Wyatt Earp? YeeHaa?
Crikey. Do we want to remember them?
> As
> long as there are people that want major horsepower, they will buy
> them. As long as they will buy them, someone will build and sell
> them.
Already in Great Britain there are moves to start putting satellite
controlled speed limiters in every car. GREAT! We are finally beginning
to bin rough-neck ideology.
>> Sporty" driving will be a historical blip associated
>> with a minor, irresponsible lobby.
>
> Everyone has hobbies. It's not for you to determine if they are
> responsible or not.
It bloody well is. And I'm telling you - your days are numbered!
>> For the same reason that there are no "sports" taxi's or "sports" buses,
>> soon there will be no "sports" cars.
>
> Were there EVER any 'Sports' taxis or 'Sports' buses? If not, then
> your comparison is bullshit.
You want sports cars? So would you want to be driven in a sports taxi?
or a pedestrian in sports taxi village? Would you let your folk get in a
sports taxi, fast and quick? vroom.
> Buses, taxis and trains will never be a substitute for the family
> car. And even if it were, the will always be people who buy cars just
> for fun. I only 'need' one car. But I have several. A couple with
> 'big honkin V-8s'.
Here in Britain we make sure that people who have fun in cars get
jailed. Dangerous driving gets you up to 12 years, and 7 years is
common. Even a cop on duty got sent down last week. 4 years he got. And
everyone thinks it's just what they all deserve, cops and delinquents alike.
> And what are you going to do about it? Nothing but whine in your
> petulant, child-like voice.
We, the public, are taking away your sweets, your baby's dummies, your
teeny-bop-boomers. If you are lucky you wont get sent down.
wsth...@bellsouth.net
That HAS to be the most dumbass response I've ever heard. Where
people want to go determines where the roads go. And, strangely
enough, businesses tend to build where there are roads. I mean, you
don't see a Smoothie King in the middle of the Gobi, now do you?
And I AM THE PUBLIC, dipshit. My tax dollars build those roads.
But, if you want to play it that way, I drive Jeeps for fun, I go
where I fucking want. Don't try and follow me, you wouldn't make it.
Yol Bolsum,
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Coffee's For Closers wrote
>>> In the future, car manufacturers will be required to install
>>> logging equipment which detects an RFID signal from a license
>>> in the possession of the driver. Speeding will be automatically
>>> detected, with a radio transmission to a gubmint facility,
>>> including GPS coordinates, driver license number, and time-stamp.
>>> The money will be automatically debited from an account.
>> Nope, the voters wont buy that. Just like they dont accept govt
>> cameras in their houses to check if they are raping the kids etc.
> So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
Even the krauts wouldnt do that again now.
And not one modern first world country would allow the
legislature to vote itself out of existence like his did either.
> Your faith in the bigger mob is grossly missplaced.
Nothing to do with any 'mob', everything to do with what the voters will buy.
> If someone had said 10 years ago that people who cut down their
> trees on their own property could go to jail for doing so, that person
> would have been laughed at and yet that IS what now happens.
Like hell it is. Almost no one goes to jail for that.
They wont be buying govt cameras inside all their houses to check on what they get up to, you watch.
wsth...@bellsouth.net
Sorry, submitting peacefully to the axeman is what you're used to. We
fight for what we believe in.
> >> The public will let the cowboy days of
> >> motoring vanish. "
>
> > Sorry, the "Public" does not determine what I drive. Only I do.
>
> Oh for the return of those halcyon days... Remember Jesse James and
> Wyatt Earp? YeeHaa?
> Crikey. Do we want to remember them?
Yeah, I remember them. I don't remember them toolling down the street
in a '69 cuda. (Maybe a mustang, though).
> > As
> > long as there are people that want major horsepower, they will buy
> > them. As long as they will buy them, someone will build and sell
> > them.
>
> Already in Great Britain there are moves to start putting satellite
> controlled speed limiters in every car. GREAT! We are finally beginning
> to bin rough-neck ideology.
Yeah, but that's Great Britain. You're used to submission.
> >> Sporty" driving will be a historical blip associated
> >> with a minor, irresponsible lobby.
>
> > Everyone has hobbies. It's not for you to determine if they are
> > responsible or not.
>
> It bloody well is.
Actually, it's not. My hobbies are none of your business. Fuck off.
> And I'm telling you - your days are numbered!
And I'm telling YOU, you're sadly mistaken and definitely dellusional.
> >> For the same reason that there are no "sports" taxi's or "sports" buses,
> >> soon there will be no "sports" cars.
>
> > Were there EVER any 'Sports' taxis or 'Sports' buses? If not, then
> > your comparison is bullshit.
>
> You want sports cars?
I not only want them, I have them. And I plan on buying and building
more. And there's not a damn thing you can do but whine. Everytime I
pass you and hear your little petulent little whine I'll wonder "maybe
time for some new brakes."
> So would you want to be driven in a sports taxi?
Hmm, why? I don't use regular taxis. I'm a grown person capable of
driving myself. See, not everyone wants to live packed like sardines
in a big city. You can have it. If I were to ever need a taxi, it'd
take him an hour to get to my place.
I've never needed a taxi, and the last bus I rode on was back in
middle school.
> or a pedestrian in sports taxi village? Would you let your folk get in a
> sports taxi, fast and quick? vroom.
My 'folk' are capable of driving themselves. They don't need taxi's
either.
> > Buses, taxis and trains will never be a substitute for the family
> > car. And even if it were, the will always be people who buy cars just
> > for fun. I only 'need' one car. But I have several. A couple with
> > 'big honkin V-8s'.
>
> Here in Britain we make sure that people who have fun in cars get
> jailed. Dangerous driving gets you up to 12 years, and 7 years is
> common. Even a cop on duty got sent down last week. 4 years he got. And
> everyone thinks it's just what they all deserve, cops and delinquents alike.
Oh, so now you change the argument. I mention V-8's and you all of
sudden imply "dangerous driving". Can't argue the facts, so you start
making shit up.
> > And what are you going to do about it? Nothing but whine in your
> > petulant, child-like voice.
>
> We, the public, are taking away your sweets, your baby's dummies, your
> teeny-bop-boomers. If you are lucky you wont get sent down
YOU, the public, are not going to do shit about what I drive. You're
only able to rant and rave and cry in frustration when you realize
your impotence.
I like my sweets, have no idea what a 'baby's dummy' or a 'teeny-bop-
boomer' is, nor do I give a shit.
So, I'll just keep working on my Myers Manx, offroading with my Jeep 4-
wheel with a V-8 (neither of which have a catalytic converter *gasp*),
cruising in my '69 Fury III (nuther V-8), hauling with my Dodge Ram
(Hemi), keep the Nissan Maxima (for the wife), using my Honda Civic
for work and might just buy the next car/motorcycle/big engine that
catches my fancy (there's a 1950 Mercury a couple towns over that's
for sale. Needs a lot of work, but I'm almost finished with the Manx
and I know where I can get a 440 that would push it along rite nice).
And there is not a damn thing you can do about it but scream your
frustration into the abyss.
Get used to disappointment (but then, I have a feeling you already
are).
Rod Speed
Doesnt mean that its gunna happen.
> GREAT! We are finally beginning to bin rough-neck ideology.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>> Sporty" driving will be a historical blip associated with a minor, irresponsible lobby.
>> Everyone has hobbies. It's not for you to determine if they are responsible or not.
> It bloody well is. And I'm telling you - your days are numbered!
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>> For the same reason that there are no "sports" taxi's or "sports" buses, soon there will be no "sports" cars.
>> Were there EVER any 'Sports' taxis or 'Sports' buses? If not, then your comparison is bullshit.
> You want sports cars?
Some do. You get to like that of lump it.
> So would you want to be driven in a sports taxi?
Nope, most prefer to drive themselves.
> or a pedestrian in sports taxi village?
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Would you let your folk get in a sports taxi, fast and quick? vroom.
Yep, if thats what they want to do.
>> Buses, taxis and trains will never be a substitute for the family
>> car. And even if it were, the will always be people who buy cars
>> just for fun. I only 'need' one car. But I have several. A couple
>> with 'big honkin V-8s'.
> Here in Britain we make sure that people who have fun in cars get jailed.
You're lying now.
> Dangerous driving gets you up to 12 years, and 7 years is common.
Dangerous driving aint having fun in a car, liar.
> Even a cop on duty got sent down last week. 4 years he got. And everyone thinks it's just what they all deserve, cops
> and delinquents alike.
Some countrys dont even have speed limits on their autobahns.
You get to like that or lump it.
>> And what are you going to do about it? Nothing but whine in your petulant, child-like voice.
> We, the public, are taking away your sweets, your baby's dummies, your teeny-bop-boomers.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> If you are lucky you wont get sent down.
If we're lucky, you'll get put down, permanently.
James A. Donald
> > And yet you say you want the public to determine where and how you
> > drive, by the roads that you want the public to build for you.
> That HAS to be the most dumbass response I've ever heard. Where
> people want to go determines where the roads go. And, strangely
> enough, businesses tend to build where there are roads. I mean, you
> don't see a Smoothie King in the middle of the Gobi, now do you?
>
> And I AM THE PUBLIC, dipshit. My tax dollars build those roads.
And not all roads are government roads - about an hour before writing
this, I purchased a load of bitumen which is going to go on a private
road.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
shrik...@gmail.com
> Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic light
> in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a patrol car
> cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement officer
> standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.
>
> But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in
> Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
>
> Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
> speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
> likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
The constitution, maybe.
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.highw...
>
> Would this stimulate the economy in any way?
Well, it would generate revenue for the government,
anyway, and, as the saying goes, "revenue generation
is the reason, traffic safety is the excuse."
Rod Speed
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic
>> light in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a
>> patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement
>> officer standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.
>> But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common
>> in Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
>> Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
>> speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
>> likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
> The constitution, maybe.
Nope, that clearly doesnt stop those two states.
Michael Gordge
> Even the krauts wouldnt do that again now.
>
> And not one modern first world country would allow the
> legislature to vote itself out of existence like his did either.
>
> > Your faith in the bigger mob is grossly missplaced.
>
> Nothing to do with any 'mob', everything to do with what the voters will buy.
>
> > If someone had said 10 years ago that people who cut down their
> > trees on their own property could go to jail for doing so, that person
> > would have been laughed at and yet that IS what now happens.
>
> Like hell it is. Almost no one goes to jail for that.
FFS Rod, just one going to jail for cutting down his trees on his farm
is too fucking many, and I know at least two who have. Not only that,
do some research and you WILL find that one of the causes of many
deaths in the recent Victoria bush fires IS because property owners
faced massive fine going to jail and ultimately death (The Rule Of
Law) if they cut down or burnt scrub or cleared a fire break to
protect their properties, IN FACT one chap DID burn scrub and WAS
fined $200,000 and YET HIS was one of the very few houses that did NOT
burn to the ground and there was no loss of life on his property.
Your faith in the bigger mob would or would not vote for is grossly
misplaced.
MG
Michael Gordge
> And I AM THE PUBLIC, dipshit. My tax dollars build those roads.
Wanker, YOU want a gun held at the head of others to pay for YOUR
ideas, that makes you a wanking fucking egg headed socialist and your
attack on those who choose drugs pretending that your moral values are
some how better makes you a fucking fascist.
MG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Gordge wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Coffee's For Closers wrote
>>>>> In the future, car manufacturers will be required to install
>>>>> logging equipment which detects an RFID signal from a license
>>>>> in the possession of the driver. Speeding will be automatically
>>>>> detected, with a radio transmission to a gubmint facility,
>>>>> including GPS coordinates, driver license number, and time-stamp.
>>>>> The money will be automatically debited from an account.
>>>> Nope, the voters wont buy that. Just like they dont accept govt
>>>> cameras in their houses to check if they are raping the kids etc.
>>> So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
>> Even the krauts wouldnt do that again now.
>> And not one modern first world country would allow the
>> legislature to vote itself out of existence like his did either.
>>> Your faith in the bigger mob is grossly missplaced.
>> Nothing to do with any 'mob', everything to do with what the voters will buy.
>>> If someone had said 10 years ago that people who cut down their
>>> trees on their own property could go to jail for doing so, that
>>> person would have been laughed at and yet that IS what now happens.
>> Like hell it is. Almost no one goes to jail for that.
> FFS Rod, just one going to jail for cutting down his trees on
> his farm is too fucking many, and I know at least two who have.
Your problem.
> Not only that, do some research and you WILL find that
> one of the causes of many deaths in the recent Victoria
> bush fires IS because property owners faced massive fine
Not one of them actually got a 'massive fine'
> going to jail
Not one of them ended up in jail.
> and ultimately death (The Rule Of Law) if they cut down or
> burnt scrub or cleared a fire break to protect their properties,
Not one of them ended up in jail.
> IN FACT one chap DID burn scrub and WAS fined $200,000
Like hell he was. That was his legal costs.
> and YET HIS was one of the very few houses that did NOT burn to the ground
Another pig ignorant lie.
> and there was no loss of life on his property.
His wasnt the only one that got that result.
> Your faith in the bigger mob would or would not vote for is grossly misplaced.
We wont see that crap at that top, you watch.
Michael Gordge
> Not one of them ended up in jail.
Making a choice to avoid jail is NOT the meaning of life, you fucking
Nazi idiot.
MG
wsth...@bellsouth.net
> On Jun 9, 7:39 am, wstho...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > And I AM THE PUBLIC, dipshit. My tax dollars build those roads.
>
> Wanker, YOU want a gun held at the head of others to pay for YOUR
> ideas,
Who said I want someone else to pay for my ideas, dipshit?
> that makes you a wanking fucking egg headed socialist and your
> attack on those who choose drugs
I don't care if someone chooses to do stupid things, I just don't want
it to interfere with my life. Just as I think that a person who wants
to drive like a maniac and run people off of the road should be
removed from society, a person wants to put others at risk for the joy
of staying wasted should be removed from society, also. If they just
want to kill themselves, I say give them the means to do it faster and
be less of a burden on society.
Don't like it? Tough shit.
Of course, the world would never go for such a simple, straightforward
answer. They'd bitch and whine about 'victimhood' and 'racism/sexism/
somethingism' and 'what about the children' and all the other leftist
bullshit. So you can live with the fantasy that you're 'doing
something' so 'Little Johnny can be free to explore his own life' and
still the crime and wastoids and unnecessary killing will continue.
Next time some crack addict has a gun to your head demanding money for
his next fix, maybe you will stop and 'consider his feelings' and
wonder 'have I victimized him in someway' and 'should I make amends
for past wrongs I have done his people'. And as he blows your brains
out, you can die with the satisfaction that you gave him his 'freedom
to take his drugs' and that you didn't 'racially profile' him.
Liberals: People who are so open-minded that their brains have fallen
out.
BTW dipshit, the topic is now Sports Cars.
Yol Bolsun,
Rod Speed
> On Jun 9, 6:41 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not one of them ended up in jail.
>
> Making a choice to avoid jail is NOT the meaning of life,
It does however expose your bare faced lies, as always.
Michael Gordge
What the fuck are ewe on about?
People HAVE made decsisions not to cut down trees because of the
threats of fines jail and or their death, (The Rule of Law) people
HAVE paid fines and people HAVE gone to jail for cutting down THEIR
trees on THEIR property, ewe being in denial of that makes YOU the
fucking ignorant Nazi inspired liar.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Who said I want someone else to pay for my ideas, dipshit?
YOU did, shitforbains, when ewe said ewe wanted the state via tax
(legalized theft) to pay for fire stations fire engines firemen and
roads and what ever other things YOU claim are the infustructure ewe
want the state to tax to pay for.
The Rule Of Law, suggest you do some research on HOW it works.
> I don't care if someone chooses to do stupid things, I just don't want
> it to interfere with my life.
Which is totally different to YOU saying you wanted all drug dealers
in jail for doing nothing more than providing a product which other
people choose to purchase.
> Next time some crack addict has a gun to your head demanding money.....
Context dropping, therefore getting very desperate, idiot.
The question was bonehead, "WHO is the victim when a drug dealer sells
drugs and HOW are they a victim?"
Oh and so as ewe dont get all excited and change the context again, we
are talking about consenting ADULTS.
Second point is, you knuckledragging freedom fraudster, explain the
fundamental difference between a crack addict demanding an unearned
benefit via the threat of a gun and the taxman demanding his unearned
benefits via the Rule Of Law?
Nazi: People who believe their moral values and choices are superior
to those of a drug dealer.
MG
Rod Speed
>>>> Not one of them ended up in jail.
>>> Making a choice to avoid jail is NOT the meaning of life,
>> It does however expose your bare faced lies, as always.
> What the fuck are ewe on about?
Why are you obsessed about sheep ? Are you a sheep raper ?
> People HAVE made decsisions not to cut down trees because of the threats of fines jail
There is no jail penalty for cutting down trees, liar.
> (The Rule of Law) people HAVE paid fines and people HAVE
> gone to jail for cutting down THEIR trees on THEIR property,
Not one has ever gone to jail for doing that, you silly little pathological lying sheep raper.
Michael Gordge
Brain dead Nazi inspired freedom fraudster control freak cockheads
like ewe have never stopped to work out what causes the price of drugs
to be so high in the first place.
Hint; you Nazi inspired knuckledragging dumb arse, prohibition doesn't
work, fuck ewe are stupid.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> There is no jail penalty for cutting down trees, liar.
Here let me help ewe, ewe ignorant commie idiot.
The Rule of law, this is how it works and how it MUST work to be of
any use to man in a civilized world.
If you cut down that tree then it will cost you a fine, if you dont
pay the fine then your property will be confiscated, if you choose to
defend your property from the bailiff, then you will be arrested and
sent to jail, if you choose to defend your life rather than go to jail
then you will be shot, oh and people HAVE been shot while defending
their lives from going to jail, which ewe will no doubt deny.
A farmer in NZ about 6 years ago cut down HIS trees on HIS property,
he was fined $10,000 for doing so because it was deemed against the
law to cut down HIS trees, he paid the fine and went straight home and
started to cut down his trees again, he was arrested immediately and
sent straight to jail for 6 months he was held along side rapists
murderers robbers and fraudsters, his crime? cutting down HIS trees on
HIS property, the fucking disgusting scum of a leftist judge said he
was going to jail for "his contempt of court" in reality he went to
jail for cutting down HIS trees on HIS fucking farm.
MG
Rod Speed
Michael Gordge desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Michael Gordge
> ....... and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Why dont ewe deal with the subject ewe fucken cowardly idiot? The Rule
of Law.
MG
shrik...@gmail.com
> shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote
>
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic
> >> light in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a
> >> patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement
> >> officer standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.
> >> But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common
> >> in Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
> >> Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
> >> speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
> >> likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
> > The constitution, maybe.
>
> Nope, that clearly doesnt stop those two states.
Actually, there is a judge in one of those states
who will dismiss any such ticket if it is contested
in his court, because he considers the tickets
unconstitutional. Anyway, someone with standing
would have to challenge the issuing of the tickets
in order for it to be declared unconstitutional. The
constitution doesn't enforce itself, and who would
go to that kind of trouble over a $181 ticket?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> shrik...@gmail.com wrote
>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Americans already have a radar and camera perched atop a traffic
>>>> light in their neighborhoods. And almost all drivers have seen a
>>>> patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement
>>>> officer standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.
>>>> But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common
>>>> in Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.
>>>> Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually
>>>> speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how
>>>> likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way?
>>> The constitution, maybe.
>> Nope, that clearly doesnt stop those two states.
> Actually, there is a judge in one of those states who
> will dismiss any such ticket if it is contested in his court,
> because he considers the tickets unconstitutional.
There's always a few loons doing stupid stuff like that.
The supremes clearly dont believe they are unconstitutional.
> Anyway, someone with standing would have to challenge the
> issuing of the tickets in order for it to be declared unconstitutional.
And when that hasnt happened...
> The constitution doesn't enforce itself, and who
> would go to that kind of trouble over a $181 ticket?
Some stupid lawyer most likely.
Rod Speed
Michael Gordge desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way
Michael Gordge
The predicament is yours ewe dumb arsed liar, ewe've obviously never
had "the rule of law" explained to ewe before and now you cant deny
that death IS the ultimate threat created by the upholding of any and
all law in any civilized society.
MG
Rod Speed
Grendel
> wstho...@bellsouth.net wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> wstho...@bellsouth.net wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Bert Hyman wrote
> >>>>> <tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .!> wrote
> >>>>>> In other countries, the owner receives a penalty notice with the
> >>>>>> option to nominate the actual driver if in fact the owner was not
> >>>>>> in control of the vehilce at the time of the offence. So if your
> >>>>>> friend/employee/family member was driving, they are the ones that
> >>>>>> pay the fine.
> >>>>> This puts the registered owner in the position of having to prove
> >>>>> his innocence. The rule of law in the US is that The State must
> >>>>> prove his guilt.
> >>>> Thats the system in Britain and Australia too. They have speed cameras anyway.
> >>>>> If the "nominated" driver simply denies the owner's accusation, then what?
> >>>> Then the owner gets to pay the fine. And if he doesnt,
> >>>> ultimately he can lose his license, the car or house etc.
> >>> So, basically, an owner of a car, who is completely innocent,
> >>> can face a fine or penalties for something he did not do.
> >> In the unlikely event that who he leant the car to denys that they were
> >> driving at the time and there is no camera photo that shows who is driving.
> >>> And not only does the state condone it, they are
> >>> actively pursuing it. Sounds like a fucked-up system.
> >> Like it or lump it.
> > Well, seeing as I live in a Country that doesn't do that,
>
> It will sometime, you watch.
Not if responsible Americans fight it. (of course, Responsible
Americans are outnmbered by 'fucking idiot' Americans, so it might)
> > I can say 'Fuck it'.
> >>> Sounds like they're more interested in raising funds than punishing the lawbreakers.
> >> Wrong when the owner of the car is welcome to say who was driving the car.
> > Again, your system considers him guilty and make him prove otherwise.
>
> Wrong, as always. You are always welcome to front the court and tell the magistrate
> that you were not driving the car at that time the speed camera took the photo.
But your system brings you before the magistrate (ie, considers you
guilty) before you can prove otherwise.
> > Ours doesn't.
>
> It does actually in some situations.
>
> >>> That's why it would be more difficult here.
> >> Nope, the law is the same in all those places.
> > You believe the law is unvaried from country to country?
>
> Corse not. It is however the on that particular question.
>
> > Damn but your an idjit.
>
> You're so stupid you cant manage to comprehend the context.
>
> >>> In the US, the authorities actually have to PROVE their case.
> >> That is just plain wrong in some circumstances.
> > Nope, it correct in all cases.
>
> Wrong, as always. Most obviously where your car is involved in a serious
> accident, there are no witnesses, including the dead other driver, and you
> leave the scene so no one can prove you were driving the car.
>
> You wont get off scot free even in america.
Sure you wil, right up until the point where the authorities can prove
you were in the car.
It goes like this: Your car was found at the scene of an accident.
The police get your address from your tag. Do they automatically haul
you in? No. They go to your address, and when you answer the door
ask, "Mr. Grendel, were you driving your car on Main Street on or
about 7pm tonight?"
And Mr. Grendel says, "Why now officer, I've been here all evenining."
They'll aske, "Mr. Grendel. Where is your car?"
And you'll say, "Why, right in the driveway where I left it. Over
th*... Oh shit, someone stole my car."
So, until such time as the authorities can prove who was driving, they
have no case.
> >>> You can't fine someone just because they happen to own a vehicle.
> >> Wrong, as always.
> > Not with anything more serious than a parking ticket.
>
> Those other countrys I listed choose to do that with speed
> cameras and parking tickets. The US will too, you watch.
>
> >> Most obviously when there is a serious accident, the driver chooses to
> >> leave the scene, the cops dont have to prove he was driving the car etc.
> > Uh, actually they do. You just said it yourself. The DRIVER left the scene.
> > The authorities have prove that the OWNER happened to be the DRIVER.
>
> No they dont in the absolute proof sense.
Yes, they do. In our system they have to meet at least one of three
burdens of proof.
1) Beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) Clear and convincing evidence. or
3) Preponderance of the evidence.
A car at an accident scene does not follow under any of those. They
can't just say, 'Well, it's YOUR car, so it was obviously YOU."
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynnical, just experienced."
Rod Speed
How odd that its happened right thruout the modern first world.
> (of course, Responsible Americans are outnmbered
> by 'fucking idiot' Americans, so it might)
Absolutely guaranteed in fact.
>>> I can say 'Fuck it'.
>>>>> Sounds like they're more interested in raising funds than punishing the lawbreakers.
>>>> Wrong when the owner of the car is welcome to say who was driving the car.
>>> Again, your system considers him guilty and make him prove otherwise.
>> Wrong, as always. You are always welcome to front the
>> court and tell the magistrate that you were not driving
>> the car at that time the speed camera took the photo.
> But your system brings you before the magistrate (ie,
> considers you guilty) before you can prove otherwise.
So does yours with parking tickets.
Your system doesnt require the goon to have you on tape parking
your car there before you can be ticketted when you overstay or
when you park where you arent allowed to park etc.
>>> Ours doesn't.
>> It does actually in some situations.
>>>>> That's why it would be more difficult here.
>>>> Nope, the law is the same in all those places.
>>> You believe the law is unvaried from country to country?
>> Corse not. It is however the on that particular question.
>>> Damn but your an idjit.
>> You're so stupid you cant manage to comprehend the context.
>>>>> In the US, the authorities actually have to PROVE their case.
>>>> That is just plain wrong in some circumstances.
>>> Nope, it correct in all cases.
>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously where your car is involved in a serious
>> accident, there are no witnesses, including the dead other driver, and you
>> leave the scene so no one can prove you were driving the car.
>> You wont get off scot free even in america.
> Sure you wil, right up until the point where
> the authorities can prove you were in the car.
Wrong, most obviously with parking tickets.
> It goes like this:
Nope, nothing like it.
> Your car was found at the scene of an accident.
> The police get your address from your tag. Do they automatically haul
> you in? No. They go to your address, and when you answer the door
> ask, "Mr. Grendel, were you driving your car on Main Street on or
> about 7pm tonight?"
> And Mr. Grendel says, "Why now officer, I've been here all evenining."
> They'll aske, "Mr. Grendel. Where is your car?"
> And you'll say, "Why, right in the driveway where I left it. Over
> th*... Oh shit, someone stole my car."
> So, until such time as the authorities can prove who was driving, they have no case.
Pity about parking tickets where you can deny you
parked it there all you like, they fine you anyway.
>>>>> You can't fine someone just because they happen to own a vehicle.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Not with anything more serious than a parking ticket.
>> Those other countrys I listed choose to do that with speed
>> cameras and parking tickets. The US will too, you watch.
>>>> Most obviously when there is a serious accident,
>>>> the driver chooses to leave the scene, the cops
>>>> dont have to prove he was driving the car etc.
>>> Uh, actually they do. You just said it yourself. The DRIVER left the scene.
>>> The authorities have prove that the OWNER happened to be the DRIVER.
>> No they dont in the absolute proof sense.
> Yes, they do.
No they dont.
> In our system they have to meet at least one of three burdens of proof.
> 1) Beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 2) Clear and convincing evidence. or
> 3) Preponderance of the evidence.
Have fun explaining parking tickets.
> A car at an accident scene does not follow under any of those.
> They can't just say, 'Well, it's YOUR car, so it was obviously YOU."
Have fun explaining parking tickets.
And since they ALREADY do it like that with parking tickets,
they can certainly do it like that with speed cameras too.
You are done like a dinner, as always.
chazworth
liability".
The offence is deemed to trivial to allow mitigation. Usually the
offence is pretty clear cut and mitigation limited.
Currently, in the UK, where we now have a plague of GATSOs (speed
cameras), they are required to identify the driver, suing photographic
evidence. In practice this would be very hard, but the system relies
on the fact that if you wish to challenge the finding then the fine is
automatically double (it is offered at 50% discount in effect).
Most people, wishing to avoid the double fine take the charge on the
chin, knowing they are guilty as hell.
In practice if you challenge the fine by asking them for the images to
"check who was driving at the time" that is usually enough for them to
drop the case and give you a warning. Often the evidence is so poor
that a conviction would not be safe. For example if another vehicle
appears in ONE of the images it is enough to shed sufficient doubt
which vehicle triggered the camera. Another example is if the image of
your face is not clear enough for identification, or that another
person was driving and you may or may not have their details. Usually
the old boyfriend/girlfirend ploy is enough for them to drop it.
Another factor is the difficulty it causes in bureaucratic terms to
make follow up contacts in which some degree of an intelligent
response is required. Often thee systems are highly mechanised and
incapable of flexibility.
But people don't realise this.
My first speeding notice, I ignored and it went away.
Second one I asked to see the images. In this case there were two cars
in the first image marked 89mph. At the time I had actually noticed
the camera and dropped down well below the speeding limit, thus the
second image, with my happy face in my BMW had no speed recorded! They
sent the images but never heard again.
The next one I paid because of pressure from my girlfriend.
Next time I was speeding in my girlfriend's car. I told her to ask for
the images as she was out of the country at the time. They sent a
letter saying they were dropping the case. You figure it out!
Rod Speed
> Parking tickets are judged on what they like to call "absolute liability".
And no reason why that cant be done with speeding fines too.
With a mechanism that allows you to report that someone
else was driving at the time so they can be fined instead.
> The offence is deemed to trivial to allow mitigation.
> Usually the offence is pretty clear cut and mitigation limited.
Just as true of exceeding the speed limit.
> Currently, in the UK, where we now have a plague
> of GATSOs (speed cameras), they are required
> to identify the driver, suing photographic evidence.
They do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a
particular individual was driving the car at the time of the offence.
> In practice this would be very hard, but the system relies on
> the fact that if you wish to challenge the finding then the fine
> is automatically double (it is offered at 50% discount in effect).
Plenty of countrys with speed cameras dont do it like that.
> Most people, wishing to avoid the double fine take
> the charge on the chin, knowing they are guilty as hell.
> In practice if you challenge the fine by asking them for the
> images to "check who was driving at the time" that is usually
> enough for them to drop the case and give you a warning.
Plenty of countrys with speed cameras dont do it like that.
> Often the evidence is so poor that a conviction would not be safe.
Often it isnt, too.
> For example if another vehicle appears in ONE of the images
> it is enough to shed sufficient doubt which vehicle triggered the
> camera. Another example is if the image of your face is not
> clear enough for identification, or that another person was
> driving and you may or may not have their details. Usually
> the old boyfriend/girlfirend ploy is enough for them to drop it.
Plenty of countrys with speed cameras dont do it like that.
You get to pay if the other party you claim was driving doesnt pay.
> Another factor is the difficulty it causes in bureaucratic
> terms to make follow up contacts in which some degree
> of an intelligent response is required. Often thee systems
> are highly mechanised and incapable of flexibility.
> But people don't realise this.
> My first speeding notice, I ignored and it went away.
Doesnt happen here.
> Second one I asked to see the images. In this case there were two
> cars in the first image marked 89mph. At the time I had actually
> noticed the camera and dropped down well below the speeding
> limit, thus the second image, with my happy face in my BMW had
> no speed recorded! They sent the images but never heard again.
> The next one I paid because of pressure from my girlfriend.
> Next time I was speeding in my girlfriend's car. I told her to ask
> for the images as she was out of the country at the time. They
> sent a letter saying they were dropping the case. You figure it out!
Doesnt work like that in many countrys.
chazworth
> chazworth wrote
>
> > Parking tickets are judged on what they like to call "absolute liability".
>
> And no reason why that cant be done with speeding fines too.
>
> With a mechanism that allows you to report that someone
> else was driving at the time so they can be fined instead.
Try and think it through! If the person you nominate disagrees then
you have a major court case in which 3 participants have to attend.
>
> > The offence is deemed to trivial to allow mitigation.
> > Usually the offence is pretty clear cut and mitigation limited.
>
> Just as true of exceeding the speed limit.
No. because you can loose your license which massively changes your
life.
>
> > Currently, in the UK, where we now have a plague
> > of GATSOs (speed cameras), they are required
> > to identify the driver, suing photographic evidence.
>
> They do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a
> particular individual was driving the car at the time of the offence.
Yes they do!
>
> > In practice this would be very hard, but the system relies on
> > the fact that if you wish to challenge the finding then the fine
> > is automatically double (it is offered at 50% discount in effect).
>
> Plenty of countrys with speed cameras dont do it like that.
Name One!
>
> > Most people, wishing to avoid the double fine take
> > the charge on the chin, knowing they are guilty as hell.
> > In practice if you challenge the fine by asking them for the
> > images to "check who was driving at the time" that is usually
> > enough for them to drop the case and give you a warning.
>
> Plenty of countrys with speed cameras dont do it like that.
Name One!
>
> > Often the evidence is so poor that a conviction would not be safe.
>
> Often it isnt, too.
If the evidence is good then you are guilty - case closed.
>
> > For example if another vehicle appears in ONE of the images
> > it is enough to shed sufficient doubt which vehicle triggered the
> > camera. Another example is if the image of your face is not
> > clear enough for identification, or that another person was
> > driving and you may or may not have their details. Usually
> > the old boyfriend/girlfirend ploy is enough for them to drop it.
>
> Plenty of countrys with speed cameras dont do it like that.
You are talking out of the back of your arse.
>
> You get to pay if the other party you claim was driving doesnt pay.
Where when?
>
> > Another factor is the difficulty it causes in bureaucratic
> > terms to make follow up contacts in which some degree
> > of an intelligent response is required. Often thee systems
> > are highly mechanised and incapable of flexibility.
> > But people don't realise this.
> > My first speeding notice, I ignored and it went away.
>
> Doesnt happen here.
>
> > Second one I asked to see the images. In this case there were two
> > cars in the first image marked 89mph. At the time I had actually
> > noticed the camera and dropped down well below the speeding
> > limit, thus the second image, with my happy face in my BMW had
> > no speed recorded! They sent the images but never heard again.
> > The next one I paid because of pressure from my girlfriend.
> > Next time I was speeding in my girlfriend's car. I told her to ask
> > for the images as she was out of the country at the time. They
> > sent a letter saying they were dropping the case. You figure it out!
>
> Doesnt work like that in many countrys.
You haven't got a fucking clue about other countries. You are talking
from complete ignorance. DO you even have a fucking car?
Oh by the way "countrys" is not spelled that way.
Andy F.
"chazworth" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbea2821-2c75-4ee8...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Parking tickets are judged on what they like to call "absolute
> liability".
> The offence is deemed to trivial to allow mitigation. Usually the
> offence is pretty clear cut and mitigation limited.
>
> Currently, in the UK, where we now have a plague of GATSOs (speed
> cameras), they are required to identify the driver, suing photographic
> evidence. In practice this would be very hard, but the system relies
> on the fact that if you wish to challenge the finding then the fine is
> automatically double (it is offered at 50% discount in effect).
> Most people, wishing to avoid the double fine take the charge on the
> chin, knowing they are guilty as hell.
That's not how it works. The cameras have nothing to do with identifying the
driver.
What happens is the owner of the car gets a notice requiring them to say who
was driving the car.If they don't identify the driver, they get a fine and
some points on their licence.
Bert Hyman
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
Did they?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Rod Speed
> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>> So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
> Did they?
Some of them did indeed.
James A. Donald
> > So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
Bert Hyman
> Did they?
A plurality voted for Hitler. A majority voted for
totalitarianism.
Hitler received as large a plurality as Allende did.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
chazworth
> "chazworth" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dbea2821-2c75-4ee8...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Parking tickets are judged on what they like to call "absolute
> > liability".
> > The offence is deemed to trivial to allow mitigation. Usually the
> > offence is pretty clear cut and mitigation limited.
>
> > Currently, in the UK, where we now have a plague of GATSOs (speed
> > cameras), they are required to identify the driver, suing photographic
> > evidence. In practice this would be very hard, but the system relies
> > on the fact that if you wish to challenge the finding then the fine is
> > automatically double (it is offered at 50% discount in effect).
> > Most people, wishing to avoid the double fine take the charge on the
> > chin, knowing they are guilty as hell.
>
> That's not how it works. The cameras have nothing to do with identifying the
> driver.
Wrong , wrong, wrong. A law cannot be prosecuted against a machine.
Establishing the driver's identity is an absolute necessity for a fine
to be made.
> What happens is the owner of the car gets a notice requiring them to say who
> was driving the car.If they don't identify the driver, they get a fine and
> some points on their licence.
Oh yeah ? All they have to do is say that the driver is unknown. It
worked for me. Read my previous postings.
You are speaking from ignorance.
Andy F.
On Jun 29, 12:15 am, "Andy F." <never.m...@tesco.net> wrote:
> "chazworth" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dbea2821-2c75-4ee8...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Parking tickets are judged on what they like to call "absolute
> > liability".
> > The offence is deemed to trivial to allow mitigation. Usually the
> > offence is pretty clear cut and mitigation limited.
>
> > Currently, in the UK, where we now have a plague of GATSOs (speed
> > cameras), they are required to identify the driver, suing photographic
> > evidence. In practice this would be very hard, but the system relies
> > on the fact that if you wish to challenge the finding then the fine is
> > automatically double (it is offered at 50% discount in effect).
> > Most people, wishing to avoid the double fine take the charge on the
> > chin, knowing they are guilty as hell.
>
> That's not how it works. The cameras have nothing to do with identifying
> the
> driver.
Wrong , wrong, wrong. A law cannot be prosecuted against a machine.
Establishing the driver's identity is an absolute necessity for a fine
to be made.
*************************************
You've apparently never heard of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders
Act 1988.
The owner of a car can be fined for failing to identify the driver.
If you really got a speeding ticket, and had the intelligence to read it,
you would know that.
> What happens is the owner of the car gets a notice requiring them to say
> who
> was driving the car.If they don't identify the driver, they get a fine and
> some points on their licence.
Oh yeah ? All they have to do is say that the driver is unknown. It
worked for me. Read my previous postings.
You are speaking from ignorance.
************************************
Liar.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2507829.ece
chazworth
I suggest that you read it! It make no such provision. Any twat can
read it, clearly you have no ability to understand it.
> The owner of a car can be fined for failing to identify the driver.
>
> If you really got a speeding ticket, and had the intelligence to read it,
> you would know that.
Don't be a cunt.
I've had 5 and only paid once. You have to know how to work the
system.
Obviously you are too stupid to do the same.
Not disclosing the named driver is NOT a driving offence and carries
no driving endorsements.
In any event this Act make no provision for speeding. It only prevents
you allowing a person to drive who has no licence. You are a dolt.
Andy F.
>On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, "Andy F." <never.m...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> "chazworth" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
OK. Here's What It says:
Section 172, road traffic act.
(1) This section applies-
a.. (a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except-
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or
117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
b.. (b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c.
53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
c.. (c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of
vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to
which this section applies-
a.. (a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to
the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of
a chief officer of police, and
b.. (b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any
information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification
of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include
references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a)
above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the
court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have
ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider
of the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b)
above is guilty of an offence.
>> The owner of a car can be fined for failing to identify the driver.
>>
>> If you really got a speeding ticket, and had the intelligence to read it,
>> you would know that.
>Don't be a cunt.
>I've had 5 and only paid once. You have to know how to work the
>system.
>Obviously you are too stupid to do the same.
>Not disclosing the named driver is NOT a driving offence and carries
>no driving endorsements.
Just because you're a bad driver who got lucky a couple of times doesn't
make you any kind of expert.
>In any event this Act make no provision for speeding. It only prevents
>you allowing a person to drive who has no licence. You are a dolt.
It's quite clear you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
>
>> > What happens is the owner of the car gets a notice requiring them to
>> > say
>> > who
>> > was driving the car.If they don't identify the driver, they get a fine
>> > and
>> > some points on their licence.
>>
>> Oh yeah ? All they have to do is say that the driver is unknown. It
>> worked for me. Read my previous postings.
>> You are speaking from ignorance.
>> ************************************
>> Liar.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2507829.ece
I guess the 'Times' must be twats, cunts and dolts as well
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/uk/crime/article2507829.ece
From The Times
September 22, 2007
Car owners who refuse to name speeding driver face six points
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Motorists who fail to disclose who was driving when a speeding offence was
committed will receive much heavier penalties under a new law that comes
into force on Monday.
Courts will be able to impose six penalty points on a driver's licence, up
from a maximum of three at present.
The change in the law is being introduced in response to a sharp rise in
attempted evasion of speeding tickets by drivers who claim they cannot
remember who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.
But motoring groups argue that innocent drivers will be placed under greater
pressure to confess to offences in order to avoid the risk of receiving a
higher penalty. They also said that drivers who made mistakes in filling out
the paperwork would be unfairly penalised and could lose their licences.
Related Links
a.. Police want DNA from speeding drivers
a.. Compulsion to identify driver ruled fair
a.. Motorist takes illegal speed record at 172mph
Vehicle owners are obliged, under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders
Act 1988, to tell police who was driving at the time of an alleged motoring
offence.
The law is most frequently used to prosecute owners who receive speeding
tickets in the post and then fail to write back with the name of the driver.
It is also used in other cases where police do not establish the driver's
identity at the roadside, such as drink-drive offences and when a driver
fails to stop after an accident.
In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 3,390
prosecutions for failing to disclose the driver's identity. Of these, 2,319
people were found guilty and received three penalty points and a fine of up
to �1,000. The maximum fine will remain the same but the Department for
Transport believes that doubling the points will act as a more powerful
deterrent, especially for drivers who already have points on their licences.
But Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed anti-speed camera campaign, said:
"This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety - it's just
spiteful. The authorities have forgotten that driving licence points were
supposed to help identify risky drivers. Giving extra points to people who
simply fumble the paperwork will further devalue the licence points system."
He said that drivers who shared a car or allowed other people to drive it
were often genuinely unable to remember who had been driving. Speeding
tickets were meant to arrive within two weeks of the offence but drivers who
hired cars or leased them might not found out for months that they were
being accused of a traffic offence.
Mr Smith said that the proliferation of mobile cameras meant there was often
no flash to alert drivers that they had been caught.
"This is very poor justice because it places substantial duress on an owner
to name a driver even when they cannot be sure who was responsible."
A Department for Transport spokeswoman said that there would continue to be
a defence for drivers who could give a good reason why they did not know who
had been driving. But she said that drivers would probably have to go to
court and convince magistrates of their innocence
Day Brown
> On Jun 8, 5:11 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nope, the voters wont buy that. Just like they dont accept govt
>> cameras in their houses to check if they are raping the kids etc.
>
> So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
desperate ways in economic crisis. Hitler had a plan, starting with the
repudiation of the reparations payments that were crippling the German
economy. That meant repudiating a treaty the German republic itself had
signed on to. Not the kind of thing a respectable politician does.
Your faith in the bigger
> mob is grossly missplaced. If someone had said 10 years ago that
> people who cut down their trees on their own property could go to jail
> for doing so, that person would have been laughed at and yet that IS
> what now happens.
The line between the commons and personal rights has always been a moot
point. If anyone went to jail that was because he refused to vote with
his feet. Or a U-haul. There are places where nobody cares if you cut
down trees; move to Haiti.
As to mob rule, yes. But which mob has the rules you like? Machiavelli
admired monarchy because, like a family business, he expected to hand it
down to a son and grandson, and took a longer view than the desires of
the mob, which says it cares about the future of its children. If that
were the case, oil would not have a stranglehold on the economy.
Les Cargill
> Michael Gordge wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 5:11 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nope, the voters wont buy that. Just like they dont accept govt
>>> cameras in their houses to check if they are raping the kids etc.
>>
>> So how come "the voters" elected a Hitler?
> Read Machiavelli; going all the way back to the Romans, republics act in
> desperate ways in economic crisis. Hitler had a plan, starting with the
> repudiation of the reparations payments that were crippling the German
> economy. That meant repudiating a treaty the German republic itself had
> signed on to. Not the kind of thing a respectable politician does.
>
No, read *Bismarck* ( or rather, read of Bismarck). Bismarck used
the Franco-Prussian War to unify a Germany out of the various
pieces.
I don't believe the US ever signed to Versailles ( blocked in the
Senate, much to Wilson's chagrin). John J. Pershing predicted quite
accurately that it wasn't really over, and hostilities would be resumed
about 25 years later. The Kaiser sued for peace after his navy
failed, so there was no conclusive victory or defeat.
France's interest in pursuing WWI was to redress reparations
assigned to France because of the Franco Prussian War, at
least in the mind of the public. This is largely why Germany
was assigned such high penalties.
Versailles was a Bad Idea.
> Your faith in the bigger
>> mob is grossly missplaced. If someone had said 10 years ago that
>> people who cut down their trees on their own property could go to jail
>> for doing so, that person would have been laughed at and yet that IS
>> what now happens.
> The line between the commons and personal rights has always been a moot
> point. If anyone went to jail that was because he refused to vote with
> his feet. Or a U-haul. There are places where nobody cares if you cut
> down trees; move to Haiti.
>
> As to mob rule, yes. But which mob has the rules you like? Machiavelli
> admired monarchy because, like a family business, he expected to hand it
> down to a son and grandson, and took a longer view than the desires of
> the mob, which says it cares about the future of its children. If that
> were the case, oil would not have a stranglehold on the economy.
Oil would still have a stranglehold. It probably has less than
it should - higher prices would make us more careful about it.
--
Les Cargill