=> CO State Patrol sez KEEP RIGHT except to pass ...!

19 views
Skip to first unread message

NewsWatch

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:59:14 AM7/10/01
to
Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the
biggest cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite
the most road rage, according to the American Automobile Association.

The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing
lane caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999. Since
then, troopers have cracked down on what they call
"passive-aggressive" motorists, those who keep exactly the posted
speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass them on the
right.

In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol
spokesman Maj. Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their
own agenda: They want to do what's right and impose the speed limit on
other drivers. That's not a bad thing until it creates a hazardous
situation on the road."

Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
in Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're
enforcing the law for people behind them. It infuriates the person
behind them. There are always people who feel they have the right to
obey the law, and they do. But the issue of obeying the law is
secondary to the primary issue that you're endangering life."


A citation for driving too slow? For not whizzing past a cop car? It
sounds counterintuitive, but the Colorado State Patrol says slow
drivers who hold up the flow of traffic are a leading cause of "road
rage."

And to quell those aggressive reactions to irritatingly slow
motorists, state troopers here have launched a campaign to pull over
roadway plodders - for a stern lecture, at least, and possibly a
ticket.

The worst offenders, officials say, are drivers who refuse to budge
from the left lane on fast-moving, high-volume interstates, even as a
trail of cars snakes behind them.


"They're making aggressive drivers even more aggressive. They're
aggravating the situation," says State Trooper Rod Campbell. "What
we're asking is that they get out of the way. Once they start backing
up traffic, they can be cited."

Swelling population and suburban sprawl around Denver have meant more
crowded highways, longer commutes, and shorter fuses among drivers.
Singling out slow drivers is intended to ease frustration - and
related accidents - and smooth out traffic flow.

The intent isn't to punish drivers who abide by the speed limit,
Trooper Campbell stresses. Still, in Colorado, as in most states,
impeding the flow of traffic is illegal. That means a motorist can be
ticketed for blocking other drivers - even speeders. In fact, in 21
states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.

Keyton

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 11:23:25 AM7/10/01
to
Well it's ABOUT TIME!! I'm glad to hear this. Now if we can start cracking
down on those drivers who have no clue what that stalk does on the left side
of their steering column.


"NewsWatch" <news_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc36821a.01070...@posting.google.com...

Matt Telles

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 12:20:19 PM7/10/01
to

"Keyton" <key...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9if6g8$r2e$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...

> Well it's ABOUT TIME!! I'm glad to hear this. Now if we can start
cracking
> down on those drivers who have no clue what that stalk does on the left
side
> of their steering column.

Actually, they bother me less than the ones that think that a Left blinking
arrow
means you turn right.
I don't mind insane drivers. I mind inconsistent ones.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 12:27:16 PM7/10/01
to
On 9 Jul 2001 22:59:14 -0700, news_w...@hotmail.com (NewsWatch)
wrote:

>Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the
>biggest cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite
>the most road rage, according to the American Automobile Association.

"Incite." Right, go ahead and try to shift the blame for bad
driving, Triple A. I'm not buying.

>
>The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing
>lane caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999.

Well, if the "slow pokes" were going less than the legal limit, then
they can and should get a ticket, but those who are merely obeying the
law are not responsible for the bad driving behavior of those behind
them.

Since
>then, troopers have cracked down on what they call
>"passive-aggressive" motorists, those who keep exactly the posted
>speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass them on the
>right.

Nobody's forcing speeders to pass on the right, they can just slow
down and go the speed limit.

And this is a flat lie, because their "crack down" went away like the
vapor it is once the public got wind of the illegal plan to harass
lawful drivers.

>
>In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol
>spokesman Maj. Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their
>own agenda: They want to do what's right and impose the speed limit on
>other drivers. That's not a bad thing until it creates a hazardous
>situation on the road."

Then they need to remove the hazard, which is the speeding tailgaters.

>
>Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
>in Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're
>enforcing the law for people behind them. It infuriates the person
>behind them. There are always people who feel they have the right to
>obey the law, and they do. But the issue of obeying the law is
>secondary to the primary issue that you're endangering life."

Faul's a fool. The endangering of life is being done by those who
scoff at the law by speeding and tailgating.

>
>
>A citation for driving too slow? For not whizzing past a cop car? It
>sounds counterintuitive, but the Colorado State Patrol says slow
>drivers who hold up the flow of traffic are a leading cause of "road
>rage."

Complete hogwash. The ones responsible for "road rage" are the
tailgaters who cannot control their tempers or their motor vehicles
and obey the law.

>
>And to quell those aggressive reactions to irritatingly slow
>motorists, state troopers here have launched a campaign to pull over
>roadway plodders - for a stern lecture, at least, and possibly a
>ticket.

I dare them to pull me over for a "stern lecture." If they do, I'll
see them in court for violating my civil rights.

>The worst offenders, officials say, are drivers who refuse to budge
>from the left lane on fast-moving, high-volume interstates, even as a
>trail of cars snakes behind them.
>
>
>"They're making aggressive drivers even more aggressive. They're
>aggravating the situation," says State Trooper Rod Campbell. "What
>we're asking is that they get out of the way. Once they start backing
>up traffic, they can be cited."

Eat me, Campbell. Cite the speeders, because you've got no legal
basis for citing people obeying the law.

>
>Swelling population and suburban sprawl around Denver have meant more
>crowded highways, longer commutes, and shorter fuses among drivers.
>Singling out slow drivers is intended to ease frustration - and
>related accidents - and smooth out traffic flow.

Well, they've just given every speeder in Colorado a valid defense to
a speeding ticket...."I was just going with the flow of traffic..."
Not.

>
>The intent isn't to punish drivers who abide by the speed limit,
>Trooper Campbell stresses. Still, in Colorado, as in most states,
>impeding the flow of traffic is illegal.

Only if that flow is "normal" and "reasonable." Speeding is neither,
no matter how many people do it.

> That means a motorist can be
>ticketed for blocking other drivers - even speeders.

They might give a ticket, but it won't stand up in court, and that
means they are illegally harassing law-abiding drivers.

> In fact, in 21
>states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
>motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.

That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
lawful drivers.
--

Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******

"The Constitution is not a pool or a pond circumscribed by
limitations and constrained in its depth, it is a flowing
river of humanity, fed by the wellspring of liberty and
freedom. It is as deep as human emotion, as wide as
human thought and it circles the universe of belief
and expression and returns to feed itself, and thus
grows ever deeper and wider."

Copyright 2001 by Scott Weiser

To send me email, remove "private."

Not Me

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:51:43 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:27:16 GMT, wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott
Weiser) wrote:

>On 9 Jul 2001 22:59:14 -0700, news_w...@hotmail.com (NewsWatch)
>wrote:
>
>>Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the
>>biggest cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite
>>the most road rage, according to the American Automobile Association.
>
>"Incite." Right, go ahead and try to shift the blame for bad
>driving, Triple A. I'm not buying.

Everything I've ever seen or read or been told says that it's good
driving to pull over and let the faster cars go by. It's also the
safest thing to do. You never know when there might be an emergency
vehicle at the end of that long string of trucks you are holding up.


>
>>
>>The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing
>>lane caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999.
>
>Well, if the "slow pokes" were going less than the legal limit, then
>they can and should get a ticket, but those who are merely obeying the
>law are not responsible for the bad driving behavior of those behind
>them.

On many roads it is legal to drive less than the speed limit. In tExas
for instance, it is legal to drive 40 when the limit is 70.


>
> Since
>>then, troopers have cracked down on what they call
>>"passive-aggressive" motorists, those who keep exactly the posted
>>speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass them on the
>>right.
>
>Nobody's forcing speeders to pass on the right, they can just slow
>down and go the speed limit.

It's not up to you to make them drive the limit, that's the job of the
police. Besides, it doesn't take much to cause a backup strictly due
to speedometer error. If mine reads 2 mph slow and yours reads 2 mph
fast, I will think you are driving 4 mph under the limit. And will be
appropriately miffed.


>
>And this is a flat lie, because their "crack down" went away like the
>vapor it is once the public got wind of the illegal plan to harass
>lawful drivers.
>
>>
>>In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol
>>spokesman Maj. Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their
>>own agenda: They want to do what's right and impose the speed limit on
>>other drivers. That's not a bad thing until it creates a hazardous
>>situation on the road."
>
>Then they need to remove the hazard, which is the speeding tailgaters.

They can't speed when some lane hog is blocking the road.

>
>>
>>Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
>>in Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're
>>enforcing the law for people behind them. It infuriates the person
>>behind them. There are always people who feel they have the right to
>>obey the law, and they do. But the issue of obeying the law is
>>secondary to the primary issue that you're endangering life."
>
>Faul's a fool. The endangering of life is being done by those who
>scoff at the law by speeding and tailgating.
>
>>
>>
>>A citation for driving too slow? For not whizzing past a cop car? It
>>sounds counterintuitive, but the Colorado State Patrol says slow
>>drivers who hold up the flow of traffic are a leading cause of "road
>>rage."
>
>Complete hogwash. The ones responsible for "road rage" are the
>tailgaters who cannot control their tempers or their motor vehicles
>and obey the law.
>
>>
>>And to quell those aggressive reactions to irritatingly slow
>>motorists, state troopers here have launched a campaign to pull over
>>roadway plodders - for a stern lecture, at least, and possibly a
>>ticket.
>
>I dare them to pull me over for a "stern lecture." If they do, I'll
>see them in court for violating my civil rights.

You will lose, at least in many states where you are required to stay
in the right lane unless actually passing another vehicle. There's no
reason to drive exactly the speed limit in the left lane unless you
are going to turn left soon, or are passing another vehicle.

>
>>The worst offenders, officials say, are drivers who refuse to budge
>>from the left lane on fast-moving, high-volume interstates, even as a
>>trail of cars snakes behind them.
>>
>>
>>"They're making aggressive drivers even more aggressive. They're
>>aggravating the situation," says State Trooper Rod Campbell. "What
>>we're asking is that they get out of the way. Once they start backing
>>up traffic, they can be cited."
>
>Eat me, Campbell. Cite the speeders, because you've got no legal
>basis for citing people obeying the law.

Wrongo, speed limit breath, see above.


>
>>
>>Swelling population and suburban sprawl around Denver have meant more
>>crowded highways, longer commutes, and shorter fuses among drivers.
>>Singling out slow drivers is intended to ease frustration - and
>>related accidents - and smooth out traffic flow.
>
>Well, they've just given every speeder in Colorado a valid defense to
>a speeding ticket...."I was just going with the flow of traffic..."
>Not.

I don't see that at all. That's never been a valid defense that I've
heard of. Many officers won't stop you for speeding in and of itself,
as long as you are travelling with the flow of traffic.

In texas, speed limits are prima facie evidence of what is prident and
reasonable. If you can convince a judge that driving 80 on a straight,
flat road in clear weather is reasonable and prudent, you can beat a
ticket.

>
>>
>>The intent isn't to punish drivers who abide by the speed limit,
>>Trooper Campbell stresses. Still, in Colorado, as in most states,
>>impeding the flow of traffic is illegal.
>
>Only if that flow is "normal" and "reasonable." Speeding is neither,
>no matter how many people do it.
>
>> That means a motorist can be
>>ticketed for blocking other drivers - even speeders.
>
>They might give a ticket, but it won't stand up in court, and that
>means they are illegally harassing law-abiding drivers.
>
>> In fact, in 21
>>states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
>>motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.
>
>That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
>discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
>lawful drivers.

Got a cite for that?

BTR1701

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 2:08:10 PM7/10/01
to
In article <3b6d2a69...@news.dimensional.com>,
wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:

> > In fact, in 21
> >states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
> >motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.
>
> That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
> discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
> lawful drivers.

I don't know about the 20 other states but it simply *is* true for my
state. The traffic code says that the left lane is for passing *only*
and if you use it for continuous travel (no matter how fast you drive)
you can be cited.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:20:54 PM7/10/01
to
Let me note that this is an undated "article" which is nothing new, I
discovered that it's a repost from more than two years ago. The
Colorado State Patrol no longer holds this position, as we've
discussed here at length.


On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:51:43 GMT, Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:27:16 GMT, wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott
>Weiser) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Jul 2001 22:59:14 -0700, news_w...@hotmail.com (NewsWatch)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the
>>>biggest cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite
>>>the most road rage, according to the American Automobile Association.
>>
>>"Incite." Right, go ahead and try to shift the blame for bad
>>driving, Triple A. I'm not buying.
>
>Everything I've ever seen or read or been told says that it's good
>driving to pull over and let the faster cars go by.

Why? so they can break the law? No way.

> It's also the
>safest thing to do. You never know when there might be an emergency
>vehicle at the end of that long string of trucks you are holding up.

I'm not "holding up" an emergency vehicle, the dweebs who fail to
yield the right of way to the emergency vehicle are. They (and I)
have a legal duty to *pull over* and stop upon seeing the approach of
an emergency vehicle. If they do so, then when I see the emergency
vehicle coming, I too will pull over. Your idea that some "long
string of trucks" I'm "holding up" are entitled to pass me *before*
yielding to an emergency vehicle is poppycock and hogwash.

>>
>>>
>>>The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing
>>>lane caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999.
>>
>>Well, if the "slow pokes" were going less than the legal limit, then
>>they can and should get a ticket, but those who are merely obeying the
>>law are not responsible for the bad driving behavior of those behind
>>them.
>
>On many roads it is legal to drive less than the speed limit. In tExas
>for instance, it is legal to drive 40 when the limit is 70.

But then you have to move to the right or even pull over and let other
vehicles pass. If you are driving the speed limit, however, you are
under no obligation (in Colorado) to give way to speeders.

>>
>> Since
>>>then, troopers have cracked down on what they call
>>>"passive-aggressive" motorists, those who keep exactly the posted
>>>speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass them on the
>>>right.
>>
>>Nobody's forcing speeders to pass on the right, they can just slow
>>down and go the speed limit.
>
>It's not up to you to make them drive the limit, that's the job of the
>police.

Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.


>>And this is a flat lie, because their "crack down" went away like the
>>vapor it is once the public got wind of the illegal plan to harass
>>lawful drivers.
>>
>>>
>>>In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol
>>>spokesman Maj. Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their
>>>own agenda: They want to do what's right and impose the speed limit on
>>>other drivers. That's not a bad thing until it creates a hazardous
>>>situation on the road."
>>
>>Then they need to remove the hazard, which is the speeding tailgaters.
>
>They can't speed when some lane hog is blocking the road.

That's precisely my point...and my intent.

>>>
>>>And to quell those aggressive reactions to irritatingly slow
>>>motorists, state troopers here have launched a campaign to pull over
>>>roadway plodders - for a stern lecture, at least, and possibly a
>>>ticket.
>>
>>I dare them to pull me over for a "stern lecture." If they do, I'll
>>see them in court for violating my civil rights.
>
>You will lose, at least in many states where you are required to stay
>in the right lane unless actually passing another vehicle.

This isn't "many states," it's Colorado, where there is no "keep right
except to pass law.

> There's no
>reason to drive exactly the speed limit in the left lane unless you
>are going to turn left soon, or are passing another vehicle.

There's many good reasons for driving in the left lane. Among them
are blocking scofflaws from speeding (which enhances safety) and
producing maximum efficient traffic flow by spreading traffic out
evenly over all lanes.

You would have everyone crowded into the right lane merely so
scofflaws can speed with impunity and without obstruction. That's
silly.

>>>The worst offenders, officials say, are drivers who refuse to budge
>>>from the left lane on fast-moving, high-volume interstates, even as a
>>>trail of cars snakes behind them.
>>>
>>>
>>>"They're making aggressive drivers even more aggressive. They're
>>>aggravating the situation," says State Trooper Rod Campbell. "What
>>>we're asking is that they get out of the way. Once they start backing
>>>up traffic, they can be cited."
>>
>>Eat me, Campbell. Cite the speeders, because you've got no legal
>>basis for citing people obeying the law.
>
>Wrongo, speed limit breath, see above.

Better check those *Colorado* statutes again, because you're wrong.

>>
>>>
>>>Swelling population and suburban sprawl around Denver have meant more
>>>crowded highways, longer commutes, and shorter fuses among drivers.
>>>Singling out slow drivers is intended to ease frustration - and
>>>related accidents - and smooth out traffic flow.
>>
>>Well, they've just given every speeder in Colorado a valid defense to
>>a speeding ticket...."I was just going with the flow of traffic..."
>>Not.
>
>I don't see that at all. That's never been a valid defense that I've
>heard of. Many officers won't stop you for speeding in and of itself,
>as long as you are travelling with the flow of traffic.

But they can, and yes, in fact, they do. And troopers here in Colorado
are even known to pick someone *besides* the "leader of the pack" and
give *them* a ticket for speeding. But if this article were true,
which it's not...it's an old article which has been superceded by
present CSP policy in which they do not stop or ticket persons who are
driving lawfully in the left lane.

>
>In texas, speed limits are prima facie evidence of what is prident and
>reasonable. If you can convince a judge that driving 80 on a straight,
>flat road in clear weather is reasonable and prudent, you can beat a
>ticket.

Good luck.

>
>>
>>>
>>>The intent isn't to punish drivers who abide by the speed limit,
>>>Trooper Campbell stresses. Still, in Colorado, as in most states,
>>>impeding the flow of traffic is illegal.
>>
>>Only if that flow is "normal" and "reasonable." Speeding is neither,
>>no matter how many people do it.
>>
>>> That means a motorist can be
>>>ticketed for blocking other drivers - even speeders.
>>
>>They might give a ticket, but it won't stand up in court, and that
>>means they are illegally harassing law-abiding drivers.
>>
>>> In fact, in 21
>>>states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
>>>motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.
>>
>>That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
>>discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
>>lawful drivers.
>
>Got a cite for that?

Sure. 42 USC 1983.

NewsReader

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:39:33 PM7/10/01
to

"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...

> Let me note that this is an undated "article" which is nothing new, I
> discovered that it's a repost from more than two years ago. The
> Colorado State Patrol no longer holds this position,

Not true, they have reiterated this logical and sane
position as recently as 2 weeks ago on channel 2 and
channel 7 news casts.

Conrad Thomaier

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:45:31 PM7/10/01
to
Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:50:33 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:45:31 GMT, sim...@netone.com (Conrad Thomaier)
wrote:

>Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.

I'm going to try to cut this one off, since it's an old post which
constitutes a troll. Even I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

BTR1701

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:51:02 PM7/10/01
to
In article <3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com>,
wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:51:43 GMT, Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:

> >It's not up to you to make them drive the limit, that's the job of the
> >police.
>
> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.

Wrong. You may have taken that mantle upon yourself but there is no
affirmative legal obligation for the citzenry to assume the duties of
law enforcement.

Ben Cantrick

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 6:04:37 PM7/10/01
to
In article <3b807880....@news.dimensional.com>,

Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:45:31 GMT, sim...@netone.com (Conrad Thomaier)
>>Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.
>
>I'm going to try to cut this one off, since it's an old post which
>constitutes a troll. Even I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

And that's really saying something, isn't it? Heh.

Seriously though, one question. I'm definitely supportive of your right
not to have to drive any faster than the limit, no matter what lane you're
in. But I'm just kinda curious why you seem to take such offense at other
people who speed.

I know technically they're endangering other people, but until all speed
limits are reduced to about 15 MPH, everywhere, I think driving is an
inherently risky proposition to both ones self and others. The risk level
may not be extreme, but it's definitely there. Is there any particular
reason that you put so much faith in that big number on the sign as the
absolute maximum acceptable level of risk from speed?

I'm not really trying to make a point here so much as I'm trying to
understand your reasons for advocating the things you advocate. Normally
you have a pretty good reason to back up the things you say.

You've probably said this before, but I missed it. Feel free to point me
at deja.google.com if that's the case. (Though it may just be faster to
retype it...)


-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the AnimEigo BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"No," she said, "but sometimes I like to watch." -Gibson's "The Winter Market"

NewsReader

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 6:05:18 PM7/10/01
to

"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b807880....@news.dimensional.com...

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:45:31 GMT, sim...@netone.com (Conrad Thomaier)
> wrote:
>
> >Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.
>
> I'm going to try to cut this one off, since it's an old post which
> constitutes a troll. Even I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Nope, the CSP came out on the Denver TV news a few weeks ago
and reitterated the logical and sane position posted. In fact they were
a little more condemning of those people, like Scott, who try to
play vigilante and drive, intead of pass only, in the left lanes.

Watch for a re-wroding of Colorado's Keep Right law to clarify this
point, and join the other 21 sane, safe states in addressing this problem.

NewsReader

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 6:38:55 PM7/10/01
to

"Conrad Thomaier" <sim...@netone.com> wrote in message
news:3b4b7763...@news.rmi.net...

> Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.


In the Line of Duty

From the Blotter

CO Troopers Going After 'Passive-Aggressive' Motorists

Dateline: Colorado statewide

They're the annoying people driving the car in front of you, going well
below the speed limit in the passing lane when you're 10 minutes late to
work. Or merging onto the highway at 35 mph.

The Colorado State Patrol realizes these so-called "passive-aggressive''
motorists are driving you mad. So it plans to pull a lot of them over during
the next two weeks to remind them that their habits are a danger to the rest
of us. It's part of the patrol's ongoing campaign to quash the problem of
"road rage'' on Colorado's highways.

"Passive-aggressive drivers are what make other drivers aggressive,'' said
Trooper Ed Gawkoski. "People are already irritated by everybody else on the
road, and then they get really angry because they have someone in front of
them that doesn't seem to care.''

Starting Monday, the patrol will be working Interstate 25 in unmarked cars,
pulling over drivers they see going too slowly, making bad lane changes and
riding their brakes. Most drivers will get warnings, not tickets. The patrol
will concentrate on the section of highway between 52nd and 120th avenues
and Arapahoe Road and Castle Pines Parkway. "Passive-aggressive drivers
create as much stress on other drivers'' as aggressive drivers do, Gawkoski
said. "Possibly more, because the passive driver is holding traffic captive
instead of zipping by and disappearing.''

One of the problems with passive-aggressive drivers, troopers say, is that
they feel they have the right to drive the speed limit in any lane. While
that may be true, they can still impede traffic and cause a safety hazard.

"If you are in somebody's way you are creating a problem, whether you have
the right to be there or not,'' Gawkoski said.

But can one be cited for driving the speed limit on the highway? "We
probably wouldn't cite them but would sternly warn them,'' he said.

A passive-aggressive citation probably wouldn't affect your auto insurance
rate, said Joan Hartman, an agent for Farmers Insurance Group in Adams
County.

"It's the major offensives that are expensive, like tickets for DUI,
reckless driving, or driving with no license or under suspension,'' she
said.

According to the American Automotive Association, 21 states have laws that
prohibit drivers from traveling continuously in the left lane. Six states
have laws that prohibit continuous left-lane travel where signs are posted.
In those states, the left lanes (or the left lanes marked) are to be used
for passing only. Colorado has neither law.

Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for AAA Foundation, says the group thinks such
legislation is a good idea. . "Obsessive, law-obeying drivers can obey the
law without annoying the others on the road.''

DENVER POST

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 8:05:40 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:39:33 -0600, "NewsReader"
<newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:

>
>"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
>news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
>> Let me note that this is an undated "article" which is nothing new, I
>> discovered that it's a repost from more than two years ago. The
>> Colorado State Patrol no longer holds this position,
>
>Not true, they have reiterated this logical and sane
>position as recently as 2 weeks ago on channel 2 and
>channel 7 news casts.

They may have suggested that it's wise to do so, but I doubt they said
they will be ticketing drivers who are driving at the speed limit just
because scofflaws want to speed past them.

Feel free to post a transcript of the broadcasts, however, if you
think I'm wrong.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 8:06:31 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:51:02 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

I didn't say there was an "affirmative legal obligation" for anyone to
do so. There is, however, both a moral and *legal* *right* for
someone to do so if they so choose.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 8:14:37 PM7/10/01
to
On 10 Jul 2001 16:04:37 -0600, mackys...@dim.com (Ben Cantrick)
wrote:

>In article <3b807880....@news.dimensional.com>,
>Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:45:31 GMT, sim...@netone.com (Conrad Thomaier)
>>>Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.
>>
>>I'm going to try to cut this one off, since it's an old post which
>>constitutes a troll. Even I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
>
> And that's really saying something, isn't it? Heh.
>
> Seriously though, one question. I'm definitely supportive of your right
>not to have to drive any faster than the limit, no matter what lane you're
>in. But I'm just kinda curious why you seem to take such offense at other
>people who speed.

Because, by and large, they are also rude and extremely unsafe, and
thus constitute a hazard to me and everyone else on the highway. I
spent too many years scraping up the bodies of people who were the
victims of bad drivers to be willing to accept such behavior.

Besides, if *I* have to obey the law, so does everybody else. It's no
great sacrifice, after all, to obey the speed limit, and I object to
the selfish, self-indulgent, obliviousness to everyone else and their
rights that speeders display. And the *worst* of the lot are the ones
who don't just break the law, but *demand* the right of way from
others, as if anyone who chooses to go more slowly than they do is
somehow an inferior species with no right to exist.

>
> I know technically they're endangering other people, but until all speed
>limits are reduced to about 15 MPH, everywhere, I think driving is an
>inherently risky proposition to both ones self and others. The risk level
>may not be extreme, but it's definitely there. Is there any particular
>reason that you put so much faith in that big number on the sign as the
>absolute maximum acceptable level of risk from speed?

Because that sign creates a expectation on the part of drivers that
other drivers will obey it, and while we all have to respond to actual
circumstances, it's a significant hazard when someone goes far outside
the normal operating parameters the law establishes. One purpose of
establishing speed limits is to make driver behavior somewhat more
predictable, and to limit the speed differentials which are the most
dangerous aspect of speeder's behavior.

> I'm not really trying to make a point here so much as I'm trying to
>understand your reasons for advocating the things you advocate. Normally
>you have a pretty good reason to back up the things you say.

I also happen to believe in absolute, uncompromising, unbending, rigid
enforcement without discretion or pity of *every* petty, niggling law
on the books, on the theory that the only way to get *rid* of such
unnecessary laws is to "share the pain" of the law with everyone, so
that they become fed up and demand their representatives repeal the
law.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 8:17:53 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:38:55 -0600, "NewsReader"
<newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:


What is the actual DATE this article was published in the Denver Post?

I believe it to be an old article from 1999.

That being the case, you should be aware that the CSP repudiated this
position barely two weeks after "implementing" it, because of the
public (and political) outcry from citizens who objected to being
classed as "passive aggressive" simply because they were obeying the
law.

I think you're trolling.

--

Pagan

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 9:36:27 PM7/10/01
to
"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
<snip>

> There's many good reasons for driving in the left lane. Among them
> are blocking scofflaws from speeding (which enhances safety) and
> producing maximum efficient traffic flow by spreading traffic out
> evenly over all lanes.

This is why civilians, especially those such as yourself, shouldn't be
trying to play "Supercop." Your an ignorant fool, and if you were a real
cop, you sure as shit wouldn't be rolling with me.

Pretending you have some sort of control over others by playing your road
games pisses people off real bad. In cop terms, it's called "escalating the
situation." A good cop doesn't do that, and smart civilians don't either.
A shitty cop, and dumbshit wannabes like yourself, don't understand this,
and people end up hurt or dead. Corrupt cops and wannabes spend a lot of
time making excuses and justifying their fucked up actions, such as
yourself.

> You would have everyone crowded into the right lane merely so
> scofflaws can speed with impunity and without obstruction. That's
> silly.

Enforcing the law, which tells you that you MUST drive in the right lanes
unless passing, makes perfect sense.

Just for your info, when you use the term "scofflaw" you are describing
yourself. After all, you've admitted driving in the (left) passing lane
when you are not passing, in violation of state law.

<snip>


> >>That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
> >>discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
> >>lawful drivers.
> >
> >Got a cite for that?
>
> Sure. 42 USC 1983.

Sure, blow the time and money suing in federal court because you got pulled
over. That would be amusing, though, since as a "scofflaw" you would be in
the wrong, and would lose miserably. I would laugh. So would many others.

Tell you what. If I ever find myself in Colorado, and I see some Supercop
wannabe farting around in the passing lane, I just might hit the lights and
pull them over. It's absolutely no problem justifying the stop.

Have a nice day.

Pagan

Jeremy Harmon

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 11:21:39 PM7/9/01
to

--


Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message

news:3b849860....@news.dimensional.com...


> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:51:02 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com>,
> >wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:51:43 GMT, Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >It's not up to you to make them drive the limit, that's the job of the
> >> >police.
> >>
> >> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.
> >
> >Wrong. You may have taken that mantle upon yourself but there is no
> >affirmative legal obligation for the citzenry to assume the duties of
> >law enforcement.
>
> I didn't say there was an "affirmative legal obligation" for anyone to
> do so. There is, however, both a moral and *legal* *right* for
> someone to do so if they so choose.

Correct, I think in this particular instance it's the philosophy known as
"ethical assholeism".

Jeremy Harmon
-----------------------------------------------
"...the product of thousands of years of religious
conservative brainwashing, which has indoctrinated
him to think that sex is bad and wrong."

Jeremy Harmon

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 12:02:54 AM7/10/01
to
--

"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message

news:3b859894....@news.dimensional.com...


> On 10 Jul 2001 16:04:37 -0600, mackys...@dim.com (Ben Cantrick)
> wrote:

> Because, by and large, they are also rude and extremely unsafe, and
> thus constitute a hazard to me and everyone else on the highway. I
> spent too many years scraping up the bodies of people who were the
> victims of bad drivers to be willing to accept such behavior.

The worst drivers are the ones that take an adversarial stance towards
others on the roads, which is what you claim to do, since you intentionally
block people who want to go faster.

> Besides, if *I* have to obey the law, so does everybody else. It's no
> great sacrifice, after all, to obey the speed limit, and I object to
> the selfish, self-indulgent, obliviousness to everyone else and their
> rights that speeders display. And the *worst* of the lot are the ones
> who don't just break the law, but *demand* the right of way from
> others, as if anyone who chooses to go more slowly than they do is
> somehow an inferior species with no right to exist.

That's hypocritical. You say that if *you* have to obey the law, than
everybody should have to, but then condemn the selfishness of other drivers
who don't want to. Forcing others to do something just because *you* have
to is pretty damned selfish in its own right.

> I also happen to believe in absolute, uncompromising, unbending, rigid
> enforcement without discretion or pity of *every* petty, niggling law
> on the books, on the theory that the only way to get *rid* of such
> unnecessary laws is to "share the pain" of the law with everyone, so
> that they become fed up and demand their representatives repeal the
> law.

I've always liked that argument. Righteous, yet devious...

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 11:33:09 PM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:36:27 -0700, "Pagan" <anti...@linkline.com>
wrote:

>"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
>news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
><snip>
>> There's many good reasons for driving in the left lane. Among them
>> are blocking scofflaws from speeding (which enhances safety) and
>> producing maximum efficient traffic flow by spreading traffic out
>> evenly over all lanes.
>
>This is why civilians, especially those such as yourself, shouldn't be
>trying to play "Supercop." Your an ignorant fool, and if you were a real
>cop, you sure as shit wouldn't be rolling with me.

That much is true, since it's pretty clear that you are a clueless
moron who is faking a "cop role" here in the Usenet.

>Pretending you have some sort of control over others by playing your road
>games pisses people off real bad.

Too bad. They are expected to control their tempers, and their
driving conduct to comply with the law. I have every right to demand
that they do, and every right to go about my lawful occasions without
regard for their desire to break the law. If that pisses them off, to
damned bad for them. I don't give way or surrender to criminals, nor
should anyone else.

> In cop terms, it's called "escalating the
>situation."

No, it's called "not taking any crap from scofflaws and criminals."

> A good cop doesn't do that, and smart civilians don't either.

Horseshit. Any good cop uses his command presence and his authority
to draw the line on acceptable conduct, and when some dirtbag crosses
the line, the cop doesn't back down, turn obsequious and snivel
apologies to the puke for annoying him, the cop simply takes control
of the situation using whatever degree of physical force is reasonably
necessary. Any "good cop" who pandered to scofflaws as you suggest
would get his ass kicked on a regular basis.

And no "smart civilian" is under any obligation to be obsequious and
fawning to some dirtbag scofflaw either. We, as citizens, have every
right to draw the very same line and refuse to back down when some
speed-demon asshole tries to intimidate us into getting out of his
way.

If any "escalation" takes place, it's caused by the lawbreaker, and
his escalation of unlawful activity simply justifies an escalation in
the degree of force used to oppose him by law-abiding citizens.

>> You would have everyone crowded into the right lane merely so
>> scofflaws can speed with impunity and without obstruction. That's
>> silly.
>
>Enforcing the law, which tells you that you MUST drive in the right lanes
>unless passing, makes perfect sense.

Except that's not what the law in Colorado says.

>Just for your info, when you use the term "scofflaw" you are describing
>yourself. After all, you've admitted driving in the (left) passing lane
>when you are not passing, in violation of state law.

Nope.

>
><snip>
>> >>That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
>> >>discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
>> >>lawful drivers.
>> >
>> >Got a cite for that?
>>
>> Sure. 42 USC 1983.
>
>Sure, blow the time and money suing in federal court because you got pulled
>over.

A civil rights violation is a civil rights violation, even if it's
just an unlawful traffic stop. It's necessary to prosecute such cases
in order to ensure that police officers toe the legal line when
performing their duties.

>Tell you what. If I ever find myself in Colorado, and I see some Supercop
>wannabe farting around in the passing lane, I just might hit the lights and
>pull them over. It's absolutely no problem justifying the stop.

Well, except that you are not, evidently, a Colorado Peace Officer,
and therefore, unless you are in fresh pursuit into Colorado from your
own state, you have no jurisdiction, nor do you have citizen's arrest
powers to stop for traffic infractions, which are non-criminal.

So, if you do so, you will be arrested for impersonating a police
officer (because I seriously doubt you really are one) and you'll be
arrested and sued for false imprisonment.

--

Ben Cantrick

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 11:50:06 PM7/10/01
to
In article <1iP27.2210$H06.6...@news.uswest.net>,

Jeremy Harmon <harmonjer...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> I also happen to believe in absolute, uncompromising, unbending, rigid
>> enforcement without discretion or pity of *every* petty, niggling law
>> on the books, on the theory that the only way to get *rid* of such
>> unnecessary laws is to "share the pain" of the law with everyone, so
>> that they become fed up and demand their representatives repeal the
>> law.
>
>I've always liked that argument. Righteous, yet devious...

Scott's free to follow his conscience. And I agree with him that it's
the speed differential that kills - we should all try and drive close
to the same speed.

But I'm afraid when it comes to laws I'm pretty sure are bad, I'm
more with MLK Jr.. Since our legislators are in the pockets of special
interests and paralyzed by moronic polls, individual civil disobediance
of bad laws becomes a rather viable tactic.

Scott's in good company, though. Socrates believed so feverently he
drank the hemlock. You have to give him credit for having steel balls.


-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the AnimEigo BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs

Usagi is a second type. Would someone please introduce her to Danclaude?

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 12:39:59 AM7/11/01
to
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:02:54 -0700, "Jeremy Harmon"
<harmonjer...@qwest.net> wrote:

>--
>
>"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
>news:3b859894....@news.dimensional.com...
>> On 10 Jul 2001 16:04:37 -0600, mackys...@dim.com (Ben Cantrick)
>> wrote:
>
>> Because, by and large, they are also rude and extremely unsafe, and
>> thus constitute a hazard to me and everyone else on the highway. I
>> spent too many years scraping up the bodies of people who were the
>> victims of bad drivers to be willing to accept such behavior.
>
>The worst drivers are the ones that take an adversarial stance towards
>others on the roads, which is what you claim to do, since you intentionally
>block people who want to go faster.

No, the worst drivers on the road are those who break the law and
demand that others accommodate their illegal activities.

>
>> Besides, if *I* have to obey the law, so does everybody else. It's no
>> great sacrifice, after all, to obey the speed limit, and I object to
>> the selfish, self-indulgent, obliviousness to everyone else and their
>> rights that speeders display. And the *worst* of the lot are the ones
>> who don't just break the law, but *demand* the right of way from
>> others, as if anyone who chooses to go more slowly than they do is
>> somehow an inferior species with no right to exist.
>
>That's hypocritical. You say that if *you* have to obey the law, than
>everybody should have to,

Yup, it's called "civilization." Get used to it.

> but then condemn the selfishness of other drivers
>who don't want to.

I don't give a damn whether they "want" to or not, they are *required*
to obey the law, like it or not.

> Forcing others to do something just because *you* have
>to is pretty damned selfish in its own right.

Whatever. I'm satisfied to selfishly demand that everyone obey the
law.

Strangely enough, the majority of society is behind me in making such
selfish demands.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 12:42:28 AM7/11/01
to
On 10 Jul 2001 21:50:06 -0600, mackys...@dim.com (Ben Cantrick)
wrote:

>In article <1iP27.2210$H06.6...@news.uswest.net>,


>Jeremy Harmon <harmonjer...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>> I also happen to believe in absolute, uncompromising, unbending, rigid
>>> enforcement without discretion or pity of *every* petty, niggling law
>>> on the books, on the theory that the only way to get *rid* of such
>>> unnecessary laws is to "share the pain" of the law with everyone, so
>>> that they become fed up and demand their representatives repeal the
>>> law.
>>
>>I've always liked that argument. Righteous, yet devious...
>
> Scott's free to follow his conscience. And I agree with him that it's
>the speed differential that kills - we should all try and drive close
>to the same speed.
>
> But I'm afraid when it comes to laws I'm pretty sure are bad, I'm
>more with MLK Jr.. Since our legislators are in the pockets of special
>interests and paralyzed by moronic polls, individual civil disobediance
>of bad laws becomes a rather viable tactic.

Not unless you have many supporters. Individual civil disobediance is
rarely useful, it's only when the inequity of the law is demonstrated
to the public through the persecution of large numbers of citizens
engaging in principled civil disobediance that it has any hope of
affecting public policy.

Then again, speeding in protest of speed laws is not "civil
disobedience," it's just speeding.

>
> Scott's in good company, though. Socrates believed so feverently he
>drank the hemlock. You have to give him credit for having steel balls.

Who, Socrates or me? You must mean Socrates, because mine didn't
clank last time I sat down.

Pagan

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 2:16:49 AM7/11/01
to
"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b8cc575....@news.dimensional.com...

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:36:27 -0700, "Pagan" <anti...@linkline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
> ><snip>
> >> There's many good reasons for driving in the left lane. Among them
> >> are blocking scofflaws from speeding (which enhances safety) and
> >> producing maximum efficient traffic flow by spreading traffic out
> >> evenly over all lanes.
> >
> >This is why civilians, especially those such as yourself, shouldn't be
> >trying to play "Supercop." Your an ignorant fool, and if you were a real
> >cop, you sure as shit wouldn't be rolling with me.
>
> That much is true, since it's pretty clear that you are a clueless
> moron who is faking a "cop role" here in the Usenet.

Clear to whom? Again, you show your profound ignorance.

> >Pretending you have some sort of control over others by playing your road
> >games pisses people off real bad.
>
> Too bad. They are expected to control their tempers, and their
> driving conduct to comply with the law. I have every right to demand
> that they do, and every right to go about my lawful occasions without
> regard for their desire to break the law. If that pisses them off, to
> damned bad for them. I don't give way or surrender to criminals, nor
> should anyone else.

You make pulling over to the right lane sound like a cowardly act. Of
course, it may seem that way to you, but most folks are able to put away
their false pride and personal insecurities to ensure a safer roadway. Most
folks aren't afraid of appearing or feeling weak.

On the other hand, if your have a weak mind and character, you really NEED
to stay in that left lane, if nothing else than to prove your psuedo-manhood
to yourself. Weak people must do anything they possibly can to try to prove
they're strength, even if it's passive-aggresive behavior.

> > In cop terms, it's called "escalating the
> >situation."
>
> No, it's called "not taking any crap from scofflaws and criminals."

Your a fool.

> > A good cop doesn't do that, and smart civilians don't either.
>
> Horseshit.

That's my line, but of course your free to use it. You need all the help
you can get, in every sense.

> Any good cop uses his command presence and his authority
> to draw the line on acceptable conduct, and when some dirtbag crosses
> the line, the cop doesn't back down, turn obsequious and snivel
> apologies to the puke for annoying him, the cop simply takes control
> of the situation using whatever degree of physical force is reasonably
> necessary. Any "good cop" who pandered to scofflaws as you suggest
> would get his ass kicked on a regular basis.

You call it pandering because your afraid of being less of a man. Cops call
it doing their job, and worry about their manhood when everybody is safe and
sound at home or jail. I guess nobody told you it's possible to still be a
man without acting like a tuff guy. Nobody's going to give any sort of
respect to a cop, or anybody else, who struts around barking commands and
acting like he's the ultimate authority. A real man can be annoyed without
using physical force to subdue anybody who annoys him.

Every day I deal with all sorts of criminals, from drunk drivers to
terrorists. I use verbal commands, but I don't act like a Supercop. Give
these guys a little respect, and they'll usually give the same. I certainly
don't pander to anybody, and I always get my way. I also don't get my ass
kicked. As a matter of fact, I've yet to encounter a non-5150 criminal who
offered a real physical fight. The worst they usually do is the
passive-aggresive thing...kinda like you. No fights, no bad reports, and no
IA breathing down my neck. It's quite nice.

However, I've seen cops in action with your attitude. They do get in
fights, they get sued, people get hurt, and my job is made that much
tougher. These shitheads would say you are right on target, but few
officers will have anything to do with them.

> And no "smart civilian" is under any obligation to be obsequious and
> fawning to some dirtbag scofflaw either. We, as citizens, have every
> right to draw the very same line and refuse to back down when some
> speed-demon asshole tries to intimidate us into getting out of his
> way.
>
> If any "escalation" takes place, it's caused by the lawbreaker, and
> his escalation of unlawful activity simply justifies an escalation in
> the degree of force used to oppose him by law-abiding citizens.

Thank the good Lord you aren't a cop, and an extra helping of thanks that,
if you were, you aren't with my agency. I hope you don't carry CCW. The
gun grabbers have enough on their plate without you adding to it.

It's guys like you who make me glad most agencies have psych tests prior to
hiring.

Again you show your ignorance. You wear it like a fine suit.

> So, if you do so, you will be arrested for impersonating a police
> officer (because I seriously doubt you really are one) and you'll be
> arrested and sued for false imprisonment.

Again you sh...you know the rest.

I'm not a peace officer in my state, and we don't do pursuits. However, I
still have jurisdiction, I can't be arrested for impersonating a police
officer, despite whatever doubts your ignorance urges, I can still pull you
over, and I can even hold you until local authorities arrive to do their
thing. If you resist, I can take whatever action needed to detain you.
It's all legal, I can't be sued, arrested, lectured or be given dirty looks.

Not that I'd ever do such a thing, but I could, the law and policy being on
my side. :-)

This is MY world. Your just living in it.

Have a nice day.

Pagan

> Regards,

scott

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 1:07:58 AM7/11/01
to
In Colorado the Highway Patrol are professionals. In the city of
Boulder, the police are thugs. Know the difference and live it.

Pagan

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 2:19:13 AM7/11/01
to
"Jeremy Harmon" <harmonjer...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1iP27.2210$H06.6...@news.uswest.net...

You forgot childish. Folks with kids know what I'm talking about. "Johnny
got play on the swing, and I didn't...Waaahhhh"

Pagan

telecon

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 2:17:45 AM7/11/01
to
In article <3b869aa8....@news.dimensional.com>,

Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
>
>What is the actual DATE this article was published in the Denver Post?
>
>I believe it to be an old article from 1999.

Quick question: Once you see a "Slower traffic keep right." sign, how
long does it apply?
--
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -Henry Louis Mencken

Bri

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:40:55 AM7/11/01
to

Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b869aa8....@news.dimensional.com...

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:38:55 -0600, "NewsReader"
> <newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:
>
>
> What is the actual DATE this article was published in the Denver Post?
>
> I believe it to be an old article from 1999.
>
> That being the case, you should be aware that the CSP repudiated this
> position barely two weeks after "implementing" it, because of the
> public (and political) outcry from citizens who objected to being
> classed as "passive aggressive" simply because they were obeying the
> law.
>
> I think you're trolling.

And you took the bait.


Bri

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:44:51 AM7/11/01
to

Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...

> Let me note that this is an undated "article" which is nothing new, I
> discovered that it's a repost from more than two years ago. The
> Colorado State Patrol no longer holds this position, as we've
> discussed here at length.
>

I agree with you on this, BUT the CSP DOES recommend that you pull over for
faster traffic. The only position that has changed is that they will give
you a ticket for going the speed limit.


Bri

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:05:52 AM7/11/01
to

Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b859894....@news.dimensional.com...

> On 10 Jul 2001 16:04:37 -0600, mackys...@dim.com (Ben Cantrick)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b807880....@news.dimensional.com>,
> >Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:45:31 GMT, sim...@netone.com (Conrad Thomaier)
> >>>Gee, maybe we'll resolve this argument this time.
> >>
> >>I'm going to try to cut this one off, since it's an old post which
> >>constitutes a troll. Even I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
> >
> > And that's really saying something, isn't it? Heh.
> >
> > Seriously though, one question. I'm definitely supportive of your right
> >not to have to drive any faster than the limit, no matter what lane
you're
> >in. But I'm just kinda curious why you seem to take such offense at other
> >people who speed.
>
> Because, by and large, they are also rude and extremely unsafe, and
> thus constitute a hazard to me and everyone else on the highway.

And so do you. So you are just as bad as they are.

> I
> spent too many years scraping up the bodies of people who were the
> victims of bad drivers to be willing to accept such behavior.
>
> Besides, if *I* have to obey the law, so does everybody else.

Nope. They have to because it is the law. It has nothing to do with *you*.

Further your interpretation of the law is twisted and your willingness to
place yourself and others in danger is uncalled for

> It's no
> great sacrifice, after all, to obey the speed limit, and I object to
> the selfish, self-indulgent, obliviousness to everyone else and their
> rights that speeders display.

Oh come on, you know that speeding a few MPH over the limit is not as bad as
you are making it out to be.

> And the *worst* of the lot are the ones
> who don't just break the law, but *demand* the right of way from
> others, as if anyone who chooses to go more slowly than they do is
> somehow an inferior species with no right to exist.

Now you are just narrowing the field down and word smithing in order to play
out your argument.

No one demands anything, but it is SMART to move over.

Bri

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:08:27 AM7/11/01
to

Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b53d80...@news.dimensional.com...

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:02:54 -0700, "Jeremy Harmon"
> <harmonjer...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> Strangely enough, the majority of society is behind me in making such
> selfish demands.

Maybe in the case of law in general, but the majority of people that are in
the left lane with a vehicle approaching that wants by, move over. It is
the smart and safe thing to do. It is you that in this case needlessly
cause even more danger and make an unwise decision to "block" the speeder.

Bri


Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 1:14:22 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:17:45 GMT, tel...@dent.arthurdent.com
(telecon) wrote:

>In article <3b869aa8....@news.dimensional.com>,
>Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
>>
>>What is the actual DATE this article was published in the Denver Post?
>>
>>I believe it to be an old article from 1999.
>
>Quick question: Once you see a "Slower traffic keep right." sign, how
>long does it apply?

It always applies, but the question is who it applies *to.* Ask
yourself "slower than what?"

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 1:14:50 PM7/11/01
to

True, but I'm about to throw the hook.

BTR1701

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 3:01:45 PM7/11/01
to
In article <3b849860....@news.dimensional.com>,
wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:51:02 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com>,
> >wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:51:43 GMT, Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >It's not up to you to make them drive the limit, that's the job of the
> >> >police.
> >>
> >> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.
> >
> >Wrong. You may have taken that mantle upon yourself but there is no
> >affirmative legal obligation for the citzenry to assume the duties of
> >law enforcement.
>
> I didn't say there was an "affirmative legal obligation" for anyone to
> do so. There is, however, both a moral and *legal* *right* for
> someone to do so if they so choose.

You said it's "up to you and every citizen". That implies that it's a
citizen's duty to do as you describe. Not true.

Not Me

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 3:11:45 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:14:22 GMT, wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott
Weiser) wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:17:45 GMT, tel...@dent.arthurdent.com
>(telecon) wrote:
>
>>In article <3b869aa8....@news.dimensional.com>,
>>Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>What is the actual DATE this article was published in the Denver Post?
>>>
>>>I believe it to be an old article from 1999.
>>
>>Quick question: Once you see a "Slower traffic keep right." sign, how
>>long does it apply?
>
>It always applies, but the question is who it applies *to.* Ask
>yourself "slower than what?"

Any other traffic that is moving faster than you. For all you know,
it's some farmer taking someone to the hospital from an area with no
ambulance coverage.

BTR1701

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 3:11:38 PM7/11/01
to
In article <3b8cc575....@news.dimensional.com>,
wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:36:27 -0700, "Pagan" <anti...@linkline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
> ><snip>
> >> There's many good reasons for driving in the left lane. Among them
> >> are blocking scofflaws from speeding (which enhances safety) and
> >> producing maximum efficient traffic flow by spreading traffic out
> >> evenly over all lanes.
> >
> >This is why civilians, especially those such as yourself, shouldn't be
> >trying to play "Supercop." Your an ignorant fool, and if you were a
> >real
> >cop, you sure as shit wouldn't be rolling with me.
>
> That much is true, since it's pretty clear that you are a clueless
> moron who is faking a "cop role" here in the Usenet.

Pagan is well established as an LEO on alt.law-enforcement. No one but
you questions this.


>
> >Pretending you have some sort of control over others by playing your
> >road games pisses people off real bad.
>
> Too bad. They are expected to control their tempers, and their
> driving conduct to comply with the law. I have every right to demand
> that they do, and every right to go about my lawful occasions without
> regard for their desire to break the law. If that pisses them off, to
> damned bad for them. I don't give way or surrender to criminals, nor
> should anyone else.

I don't know about Colorado but in Texas, driving in excess of the
posted speed limit is not a per se crime.

Posted speeds are merely speeds that the state has determined to be
reasonably and prudent under most road conditions. The courts in Texas
are replete with examples of people who were able to prove to a judge's
satisfaction that their excess of the posted limit was not unreasonable
given the extant road conditions at the time with the result of an
acquittal being entered in their favor.

Therefore, merely exceeding the posted limit in my state does not per se
make one a criminal or scofflaw.

On the other hand, driving in the left lane in a continuous manner *is*
a direct violation of the traffic code, so I suggest you alter your
behavior should you ever end up driving in this jurisdiction.

BTR1701

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 3:20:44 PM7/11/01
to
In article <3b54d8c1...@news.dimensional.com>,
wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:

> Then again, speeding in protest of speed laws is not "civil
> disobedience," it's just speeding.

So now you also get to define for the rest of us what constitutes
protest and civil disobedience and what does not?

It sure must be nice to be omniscient.

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 4:25:18 PM7/11/01
to
In alt.law-enforcement NewsWatch <news_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing
: lane caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999. Since
: then, troopers have cracked down on what they call
: "passive-aggressive" motorists, those who keep exactly the posted
: speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass them on the
: right.

Good!

A nice, costly ticket should cure those assholes of their self-
appointed traffic cop fantasies. At least once per day I find
myself in either a traffic jam or fast cars in the slower lanes
caused by some jackoff who thought it would be a smart idea to
pull into the left lane and do the limit.

That kind of driving has a huge negative affect on ALL THE LANES.

As someone who drives in the right or middle lane at the limit,
because of Joe Asshole at the limit in the left lane, the rest of
us have to contend with the sanger of people driving above the
limit in the slower (rightmost) lanes.

I'd just LOVE to see cops around here pull these left-lane jagoffs
over and cite them.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 4:26:45 PM7/11/01
to
In alt.law-enforcement Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
: Well, if the "slow pokes" were going less than the legal limit, then
: they can and should get a ticket, but those who are merely obeying the
: law are not responsible for the bad driving behavior of those behind
: them.

My state laws require that motorists drive in the rightmost
lane possible. Someone driving the limit in the leftmost lane
almost always breaking that law.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 4:28:04 PM7/11/01
to
:> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.

Start OBEYING the law first, like the one that requires you
to drive in the rightmost lane available.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga

Fred the Red Shirt

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:23:25 PM7/11/01
to
news_w...@hotmail.com (NewsWatch) wrote in message news:<fc36821a.01070...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article,

What's the date on that article?

--

FF

Dan Duncan

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:46:08 PM7/11/01
to
In co.general Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> :> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.

> Start OBEYING the law first, like the one that requires you
> to drive in the rightmost lane available.

If Colorado had such a law, he probably would.

Since Colorado has no such law... well, you know the rest.

-DanD

--
# Dan Duncan (kd4igw) spam...@frottage.com http://pcisys.net/~dand
# Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:40:37 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:01:45 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>In article <3b849860....@news.dimensional.com>,
>wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:51:02 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com>,
>> >wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:51:43 GMT, Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >It's not up to you to make them drive the limit, that's the job of the
>> >> >police.
>> >>
>> >> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.
>> >
>> >Wrong. You may have taken that mantle upon yourself but there is no
>> >affirmative legal obligation for the citzenry to assume the duties of
>> >law enforcement.
>>
>> I didn't say there was an "affirmative legal obligation" for anyone to
>> do so. There is, however, both a moral and *legal* *right* for
>> someone to do so if they so choose.
>
>You said it's "up to you and every citizen". That implies that it's a
>citizen's duty to do as you describe. Not true.

No, you inferred it, I did not imply it. However, now that you mention
it, I think that there is a moral and ethical duty each of us has to
actively enforce the laws of the community.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:46:08 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:11:38 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>In article <3b8cc575....@news.dimensional.com>,
>wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:36:27 -0700, "Pagan" <anti...@linkline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
>> ><snip>
>> >> There's many good reasons for driving in the left lane. Among them
>> >> are blocking scofflaws from speeding (which enhances safety) and
>> >> producing maximum efficient traffic flow by spreading traffic out
>> >> evenly over all lanes.
>> >
>> >This is why civilians, especially those such as yourself, shouldn't be
>> >trying to play "Supercop." Your an ignorant fool, and if you were a
>> >real
>> >cop, you sure as shit wouldn't be rolling with me.
>>
>> That much is true, since it's pretty clear that you are a clueless
>> moron who is faking a "cop role" here in the Usenet.
>
>Pagan is well established as an LEO on alt.law-enforcement.

Well, I've never heard of him nor do I know what his position or
credentials are. He's free to restate them if he likes.

>No one but
>you questions this.

Don't blame me if you're gullible.

>>
>> >Pretending you have some sort of control over others by playing your
>> >road games pisses people off real bad.
>>
>> Too bad. They are expected to control their tempers, and their
>> driving conduct to comply with the law. I have every right to demand
>> that they do, and every right to go about my lawful occasions without
>> regard for their desire to break the law. If that pisses them off, to
>> damned bad for them. I don't give way or surrender to criminals, nor
>> should anyone else.
>
>I don't know about Colorado but in Texas, driving in excess of the
>posted speed limit is not a per se crime.

It's not a per se crime here either, it's a non-criminal traffic
infraction, unless the speed is 20 or more mph over the limit, where
it becomes a misdemeanor.

>
>Posted speeds are merely speeds that the state has determined to be
>reasonably and prudent under most road conditions. The courts in Texas
>are replete with examples of people who were able to prove to a judge's
>satisfaction that their excess of the posted limit was not unreasonable
>given the extant road conditions at the time with the result of an
>acquittal being entered in their favor.

This thread is not about Texas law, it's about Colorado law.

>
>Therefore, merely exceeding the posted limit in my state does not per se
>make one a criminal or scofflaw.

It may not make them a criminal, but it certainly makes them a
scofflaw.

>
>On the other hand, driving in the left lane in a continuous manner *is*
>a direct violation of the traffic code, so I suggest you alter your
>behavior should you ever end up driving in this jurisdiction.

But of course. I always obey the law, and when I'm in another state,
I obey that law. But here in Colorado I'm entitled to drive in the
left lane all day long, so long as I drive at the legal speed limit.

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:51:34 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:11:45 GMT, Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:14:22 GMT, wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott
>Weiser) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:17:45 GMT, tel...@dent.arthurdent.com
>>(telecon) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b869aa8....@news.dimensional.com>,
>>>Scott Weiser <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>What is the actual DATE this article was published in the Denver Post?
>>>>
>>>>I believe it to be an old article from 1999.
>>>
>>>Quick question: Once you see a "Slower traffic keep right." sign, how
>>>long does it apply?
>>
>>It always applies, but the question is who it applies *to.* Ask
>>yourself "slower than what?"
>
>Any other traffic that is moving faster than you.

Nope. The law says I have to keep right only if I'm going slower than
the normal speed of traffic. Since any speed in excess of the posted
limit is prima facie unreasonable, it's also prima facie abnormal, and
I'm not required to give way to it.

> For all you know,
>it's some farmer taking someone to the hospital from an area with no
>ambulance coverage.

Too bad. The emergency exception to the speed limit does not impose
upon any other driver any obligation to give way to the speeding
vehicle unless that vehicle is an authorized emergency vehicle
displaying the requisite emergency lights and siren.

And any vehicle using the emergency exception to the speed law must do
so in a safe and reasonable manner, which means that they *cannot*
speed when doing so would endanger other vehicles *or themselves.*

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:52:05 PM7/11/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:20:44 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>In article <3b54d8c1...@news.dimensional.com>,
>wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
>
>> Then again, speeding in protest of speed laws is not "civil
>> disobedience," it's just speeding.
>
>So now you also get to define for the rest of us what constitutes
>protest and civil disobedience and what does not?

Of course.

>It sure must be nice to be omniscient.

Yes, yes it is.

Matt Telles

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 8:50:36 PM7/11/01
to

"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
news:3b83980e....@news.dimensional.com...

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:39:33 -0600, "NewsReader"
> <newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b796df4....@news.dimensional.com...
> >> Let me note that this is an undated "article" which is nothing new, I
> >> discovered that it's a repost from more than two years ago. The
> >> Colorado State Patrol no longer holds this position,
> >
> >Not true, they have reiterated this logical and sane
> >position as recently as 2 weeks ago on channel 2 and
> >channel 7 news casts.
>
> They may have suggested that it's wise to do so, but I doubt they said
> they will be ticketing drivers who are driving at the speed limit just
> because scofflaws want to speed past them.

I believe they have said that they will ticket those that break the law,
however, they will ask that you avoid things to trigger road rage. That
said, however, I find myself in the unenviable position :) of agreeing
with Scott. The law is the law. Disagree with it? Then campaign to
change it. But don't break it

Matt

NewsReader

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 10:38:12 PM7/11/01
to

"Dan Duncan" <da...@babu.pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:tkppa07...@corp.supernews.com...

> In co.general Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> > :> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.
>
> > Start OBEYING the law first, like the one that requires you
> > to drive in the rightmost lane available.
>
> If Colorado had such a law, he probably would.
>

It does.

> Since Colorado has no such law... well, you know the rest.

You're lying again:

42-4-1001 - Drive on right side - **exceptions**.

(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon
the right half of the roadway, **except** as follows:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction under the rules governing such movement;

(b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left
of the center of the highway; but any person so doing shall yield the
right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the
unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an
immediate hazard;

(c) Upon a roadway divided into three lanes for traffic under the rules
applicable thereon; or

(d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic as indicated by official
traffic control devices.

(2) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal
speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then
existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic
or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.

(3) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and
providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the
left of the center line of the roadway, except when authorized by official
traffic control devices designating certain lanes to the left side of the
center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such
lanes or except as permitted under subsection (1) (b) of this section.
However, this subsection (3) does not prohibit the crossing of the center
line in making a left turn into or from an alley, private road, or driveway
when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with,
impeding, or endangering other traffic lawfully using the highway.

(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class
A traffic infraction.


42-4-1103 - Minimum speed regulation.

(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation of such
vehicle or in compliance with law.
(2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities within
their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an engineering and
traffic investigation as described in the state traffic control manual, that
slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic, said department or such local authority may
determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall
drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance
with law.

(3) Notwithstanding any minimum speed that may be authorized and posted
pursuant to this section, if any person drives a motor vehicle on a highway
outside an incorporated area or on any controlled-access highway at a speed
less than the normal and reasonable speed of traffic under the conditions
then and there existing and by so driving at such slower speed impedes or
retards the normal and reasonable movement of vehicular traffic following
immediately behind, then such driver shall:

(a) Where the width of the traveled way permits, drive in the right-hand
lane available to traffic or on the extreme right side of the roadway
consistent with the provisions of section 42-4-1001 (2) until such impeded
traffic has passed by; or

(b) Pull off the roadway at the first available place where such movement
can safely and lawfully be made until such impeded traffic has passed by.

(4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are
provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than the
normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or turnouts to
allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic flow.

(5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class
A traffic infraction.

Oh yeah, and this one:

Justification is recognized as an affirmative defense to the charge of
speeding, but the defendant must present credible evidence as to the
specific threat of injury and the lack of a reasonable alternative other
than commission of the offense. People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1990).


42-4-1101 - Speed limits.

(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.

(9) The conduct of a driver of a vehicle which would otherwise constitute
a violation of this section is justifiable and not unlawful when:

(a) It is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public
or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation
occasioned or developed through no conduct of said driver and which is of
sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and
morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly
outweigh the desirability of avoiding the consequences sought to be
prevented by this section; or


gemery

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 10:43:30 PM7/11/01
to
How does all this bullshit get passed and enforced without a public vote?

Is it not the *people* who are *supposed* to be controlling this wonderful
country?!


"NewsWatch" <news_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc36821a.01070...@posting.google.com...
> Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the
> biggest cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite
> the most road rage, according to the American Automobile Association.


>
> The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing
> lane caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999. Since
> then, troopers have cracked down on what they call
> "passive-aggressive" motorists, those who keep exactly the posted
> speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass them on the
> right.
>

> In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol
> spokesman Maj. Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their
> own agenda: They want to do what's right and impose the speed limit on
> other drivers. That's not a bad thing until it creates a hazardous
> situation on the road."
>
> Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
> in Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're
> enforcing the law for people behind them. It infuriates the person
> behind them. There are always people who feel they have the right to
> obey the law, and they do. But the issue of obeying the law is
> secondary to the primary issue that you're endangering life."
>
>
> A citation for driving too slow? For not whizzing past a cop car? It
> sounds counterintuitive, but the Colorado State Patrol says slow
> drivers who hold up the flow of traffic are a leading cause of "road
> rage."
>
> And to quell those aggressive reactions to irritatingly slow
> motorists, state troopers here have launched a campaign to pull over
> roadway plodders - for a stern lecture, at least, and possibly a
> ticket.
>
> The worst offenders, officials say, are drivers who refuse to budge
> from the left lane on fast-moving, high-volume interstates, even as a
> trail of cars snakes behind them.
>
>
> "They're making aggressive drivers even more aggressive. They're
> aggravating the situation," says State Trooper Rod Campbell. "What
> we're asking is that they get out of the way. Once they start backing
> up traffic, they can be cited."
>
> Swelling population and suburban sprawl around Denver have meant more
> crowded highways, longer commutes, and shorter fuses among drivers.
> Singling out slow drivers is intended to ease frustration - and
> related accidents - and smooth out traffic flow.
>
> The intent isn't to punish drivers who abide by the speed limit,
> Trooper Campbell stresses. Still, in Colorado, as in most states,
> impeding the flow of traffic is illegal. That means a motorist can be
> ticketed for blocking other drivers - even speeders. In fact, in 21
> states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
> motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.

Dan Duncan

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 11:22:00 PM7/11/01
to
In boulder.general NewsReader <newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:
>> Since Colorado has no such law... well, you know the rest.

> You're lying again:

> 42-4-1001 - Drive on right side - **exceptions**.

> (1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon
> the right half of the roadway, **except** as follows:

Yes, in Colorado vehicles still drive on the right side of the road.
Good for you. For extra points, which side do they drive on in England?

-DanD

# If electricity comes from electrons, does that mean that morality comes
# from morons? From "Ask Dr. Science"

Dan Duncan

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 11:24:33 PM7/11/01
to
In boulder.general gemery <gem...@ssatech.com> wrote:
> How does all this bullshit get passed and enforced without a public vote?

By "public vote" do you mean a vote of the public or a legislative
vote conducted with public knowledge?

Oddly enough, the legislature has that power. It says so right
in the documentation.

> Is it not the *people* who are *supposed* to be controlling this wonderful
> country?!

It's a thought.

-DanD

# The mistake you make is in trying to figure it out. TENESSEE WILLIAMS

Scott Weiser

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 2:19:52 AM7/12/01
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:38:12 -0600, "NewsReader"
<newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:

>
>"Dan Duncan" <da...@babu.pcisys.net> wrote in message
>news:tkppa07...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In co.general Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>> > :> Nope, it's up to me, and to every citizen, to enforce the law.
>>
>> > Start OBEYING the law first, like the one that requires you
>> > to drive in the rightmost lane available.
>>
>> If Colorado had such a law, he probably would.
>>
>
>It does.
>
>> Since Colorado has no such law... well, you know the rest.
>
>You're lying again:

Nope. See highlighted phrases below:

>
>42-4-1001 - Drive on right side - **exceptions**.
>
>(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon
>the right half of the roadway, **except** as follows:

> (2) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at
*****


less than the normal speed of traffic

*****


> at the time and place and under the conditions then
>existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic
>or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
>except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
>direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>private road or driveway.

So long as I'm driving at the "normal" speed of traffic, I'm under no
obligation to move to the right lane.


>
>42-4-1103 - Minimum speed regulation.
>
>(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a slow
>speed as to impede or block the

*****
normal and reasonable
*****


>forward movement of
>traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation of such
>vehicle or in compliance with law.

Here it is again. No obligation to give way to speeders.


> (3) Notwithstanding any minimum speed that may be authorized and posted
>pursuant to this section, if any person drives a motor vehicle on a highway
>outside an incorporated area or on any controlled-access highway at a speed

*****


less than the normal and reasonable speed of traffic under the
conditions

*****


>then and there existing and by so driving at such slower speed impedes or
>retards the normal and reasonable movement of vehicular traffic following
>immediately behind, then such driver shall:

And again, as above. No obligation to pull over for speeders.

>
>Oh yeah, and this one:
>
> Justification is recognized as an affirmative defense to the charge of
>speeding, but the defendant must present credible evidence as to the
>specific threat of injury and the lack of a reasonable alternative other
>than commission of the offense. People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1990).
>
>
>42-4-1101 - Speed limits.
>
>(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is
>reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.

Nice of you to elide this:

(4) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of subsection (8) of
this section, any speed in excess of the lawful speeds set forth in
subsection (2) of this section shall be prima facie evidence that such
speed was not reasonable or prudent under the conditions then
existing. As used in this subsection (4), "prima facie evidence" means
evidence which is sufficient proof that the speed was not reasonable
or prudent under the conditions then existing, and which will remain
sufficient proof of such fact, unless contradicted and overcome by
evidence bearing upon the question of whether or not the speed was


reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.

Thus, any speed in excess of the posted maximum is "prima facie"
unreasonable and imprudent, and since I'm only required to move to the
right if I'm going slower that the *reasonable* and *normal* speed of
traffic, I'm not obligated to move to the right to acommodate
"unreasonable, imprudent speeders," no matter *how many of them there
are on the roadway.*

Add to that the fact that in *no* case, not even under your specious
notion of the law, am I required to give way to *individual* speeders
who are going *much faster* than the prevailing traffic.

And you elided this:

Intent to enact enforceable speed limit. It was obviously the
intention of the general assembly to enact a maximum speed limit
enforceable through penal sanctions. Olinyk v. People, 642 P.2d 490
(Colo. 1982).

and this:

Speed limit is enforceable. Since the penalty applicable to violation
of the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit charged by complaint and summons
is ascertainable, the speed limit is enforceable. Olinyk v. People,
642 P.2d 490 (Colo. 1982).

and this:

The policy considerations behind the enactment of this section
prohibiting the driving of a vehicle in excess of the maximum speed of
55 miles per hour is that a driver must be charged as a matter of
public policy, with the responsibility of ensuring that his vehicle is
safe, so as to minimize the risk inherent in travel on our public
highways. People v. Caddy, 189 Colo. 353, 540 P.2d 1089 (1975).


> (9) The conduct of a driver of a vehicle which would otherwise constitute
>a violation of this section is justifiable and not unlawful when:
>
> (a) It is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public
>or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation
>occasioned or developed through no conduct of said driver and which is of
>sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and
>morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly
>outweigh the desirability of avoiding the consequences sought to be
>prevented by this section; or

And even if you can prove "justification," for speeding which would
exonerate YOU from a speeding charge, the mere fact that YOU have some
"emergency" and reason to speed does NOT mean that some burden is
imposed on *other vehicles* to give way to you so you can do so.

So long as I'm proceeding at the "normal" and "reasonable" speed of
traffic, which is *always* less than the posted maximum speed limit, I
may do so without regard for your desire to go faster. Your
"emergency" does not grant you the authority to demand the right of
way from me. You'll just have to poke along at the speed limit until
you can safely pass and safely proceed at a *safe* speed during your
emergency.

Sorry, but you're just wrong, but nice try. Better luck next time.

CPC

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:18:22 AM7/12/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:08:10 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>In article <3b6d2a69...@news.dimensional.com>,

>wei...@private.altnews.com wrote:
>
>> > In fact, in 21
>> >states (but not Colorado) the left lane is reserved for passing
>> >motorists and can't be used legally for continuous travel.
>>

>> That's simply not true, as the CSP discovered once already, and will
>> discover again when they get sued in federal court for harassing
>> lawful drivers.
>
>I don't know about the 20 other states but it simply *is* true for my
>state. The traffic code says that the left lane is for passing *only*
>and if you use it for continuous travel (no matter how fast you drive)
>you can be cited.

YUP. This is simply not understood. Once fines are handed out for
being in the left lane and not engaged in passing, this will change.
But again, ignorance is widespead. I see alot of potential for
revenue here.

CPC
_______________-sig file-__________
zzzzz...@hotmail.com
___________________________________

tonyp

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:00:25 AM7/12/01
to

BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote

> I don't know about the 20 other states but it simply *is* true for my
> state. The traffic code says that the left lane is for passing *only*
> and if you use it for continuous travel (no matter how fast you drive)
> you can be cited.


Same here in MA. What I'd like to know is, how lackadaisically are you
allowed to pass someone?

If the fellow up ahead in the right lane is cruising along at 1 mph under
the limit, you can legally pass him. Unless you're a jerk, you will pull
into the left lane well behind him, and not return to the right lane until
well in front of him. Say 5 car lengths front and back, so the whole
maneuver takes 200 ft or so. At the 1 mph closing speed, it takes about
15 seconds. If the whole thing is happening at around 60 mph, it takes
about a quarter mile.

Can you be in the left lane for a quarter mile without violating the
"continuous travel" clause? How about a whole mile, as when the speed
difference is only 1/2 mph and you want to leave 10 car lengths fore and
aft?

-- Tony Prentakis

Daniel J Stern

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:19:50 AM7/12/01
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Scott Weiser wrote:

> So long as I'm driving at the "normal" speed of traffic, I'm under no
> obligation to move to the right lane.

"Normal speed of traffic" is not defined as "The number that's on the
speed limit sign".

Thanks for playing.

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:39:32 AM7/12/01
to
In alt.law-enforcement Dan Duncan <da...@babu.pcisys.net> wrote:
:> Start OBEYING the law first, like the one that requires you

:> to drive in the rightmost lane available.

: If Colorado had such a law, he probably would.
: Since Colorado has no such law... well, you know the rest.

You know that for a fact?

--
-- Mike Zarlenga

The media lied about Florida's black voter turnout ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010711-92389405.htm

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:42:27 AM7/12/01
to
In alt.law-enforcement NewsReader <newsr...@newsreader.org> wrote:
:> If Colorado had such a law, he probably would.

: It does.

Damn you! I wanted to get Dan Duncan to dig his own grave
a little deepr before I sprung the actual law upon him ...

Anyway, good job.


: You're lying again: